5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Employment Law Issues (9:V)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Employment Law Issues (9:V) (view source)
Revision as of 13:29, 18 August 2021
, 13:29, 18 August 2021→22. Redundancy and Layoff
| Line 795: | Line 795: | ||
Some employers assert just cause (or file counterclaims) as a litigation tactic to deter an employee from advancing a valid wrongful dismissal claim. In these scenarios employees may use that employer tactic as both a defence, and as grounds for additional damages claims against the employer. See R''uston v. Keddco Mfg. (2011) Ltd.'', 2018 ONSC 2919 , where the court awarded moral damages, extensive costs, and $100,000 in punitive damages for improper cause allegations. | Some employers assert just cause (or file counterclaims) as a litigation tactic to deter an employee from advancing a valid wrongful dismissal claim. In these scenarios employees may use that employer tactic as both a defence, and as grounds for additional damages claims against the employer. See R''uston v. Keddco Mfg. (2011) Ltd.'', 2018 ONSC 2919 , where the court awarded moral damages, extensive costs, and $100,000 in punitive damages for improper cause allegations. | ||
=== | === 7. Redundancy and Layoff === | ||
Where the company no longer requires the employee, or the employer encounters economic difficulties or undergoes reorganization, the employee is still entitled to reasonable notice (''Paterson v Robin Hood Flour Mills Ltd (l969)'', 68 WWR 446 (BCSC)). In times of economic uncertainty, redundancy is not cause for dismissal. The economic motive for terminating a position does not relate to an individual’s conduct and hence is not adequate cause (''Young v Okanagan College Board'' (1984), 5 CCEL 60 (BCSC)). | Where the company no longer requires the employee, or the employer encounters economic difficulties or undergoes reorganization, the employee is still entitled to reasonable notice (''Paterson v Robin Hood Flour Mills Ltd (l969)'', 68 WWR 446 (BCSC)). In times of economic uncertainty, redundancy is not cause for dismissal. The economic motive for terminating a position does not relate to an individual’s conduct and hence is not adequate cause (''Young v Okanagan College Board'' (1984), 5 CCEL 60 (BCSC)). | ||
“Temporary layoff” is defined in section 1 of the ''ESA''. A recent B.C. Supreme Court decision, ''Besse v Dr AS Machner Inc'', 2009 BCSC 1316, established that the temporary layoff provisions of the ''ESA'' alone do not give employers the right to temporarily lay off employees: a layoff constitutes termination unless it has been provided for in the contract of employment either expressly or as an implied term based on well-known industry-wide practice, or the employee consented to the layoff. If the right to temporary layoff exists for one of these reasons, then the limits set out in section 1 apply: where an employee has been laid off for more than 13 consecutive weeks, and this has not been extended either by agreement or by the Director, the employee is considered to have been terminated permanently, and is entitled to severance pay. He or she also may be able to sue for wrongful dismissal before the 13-week period has expired. This would be the case where, although the employer has used the term “layoff”, it is nonetheless clear that the employee has been terminated. | “Temporary layoff” is defined in section 1 of the ''ESA''. A recent B.C. Supreme Court decision, ''Besse v Dr AS Machner Inc'', 2009 BCSC 1316, established that the temporary layoff provisions of the ''ESA'' alone do not give employers the right to temporarily lay off employees: a layoff constitutes termination unless it has been provided for in the contract of employment either expressly or as an implied term based on well-known industry-wide practice, or the employee consented to the layoff. If the right to temporary layoff exists for one of these reasons, then the limits set out in section 1 apply: where an employee has been laid off for more than 13 consecutive weeks, and this has not been extended either by agreement or by the Director, the employee is considered to have been terminated permanently, and is entitled to severance pay. He or she also may be able to sue for wrongful dismissal before the 13-week period has expired. This would be the case where, although the employer has used the term “layoff”, it is nonetheless clear that the employee has been terminated. | ||
=== 23. Probationary Employees === | === 23. Probationary Employees === | ||
