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 14:23, 18 August 2021
, 14:23, 18 August 2021→8. Probationary Employees
| Line 813: | Line 813: | ||
However, if no probationary period is expressly specified in the employment contract, then the employee may still be entitled to reasonable notice at common law. The dismissed probationary employee could file a claim in Small Claims Court for wrongful dismissal. | However, if no probationary period is expressly specified in the employment contract, then the employee may still be entitled to reasonable notice at common law. The dismissed probationary employee could file a claim in Small Claims Court for wrongful dismissal. | ||
In British Columbia, there is a developing judicial trend towards extending the right to be treated fairly to probationary employees. The test in British Columbia for terminating probationary employees is that of suitability, not just cause, as set forth in ''Jadot v Concert Industries'', [1997] BCJ No 2403 (BCCA). In determining suitability, the case of ''Geller v Sable Resources Ltd'', 2012 BCSC 1861, explained that the probationary employee must be given a chance to meet the standards that the employer set out when the employee was hired; the employer cannot begin imposing new standards afterwards. | In British Columbia, there is a developing judicial trend towards extending the right to be treated fairly to probationary employees. The test in British Columbia for terminating probationary employees is that of suitability, not just cause, as set forth in ''Jadot v Concert Industries'', [1997] BCJ No 2403 (BCCA), https://canlii.ca/t/1dzdh. In determining suitability, the case of ''Geller v Sable Resources Ltd'', 2012 BCSC 1861, explained that the probationary employee must be given a chance to meet the standards that the employer set out when the employee was hired; the employer cannot begin imposing new standards afterwards. | ||
In ''Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority)'', 2017 BCSC 42, the Court held that if a company wants to fire an employee on probation, it should give the employee a fair chance to prove he or she can do the job. Otherwise, it may owe severance. | In ''Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority)'', 2017 BCSC 42, the Court held that if a company wants to fire an employee on probation, it should give the employee a fair chance to prove he or she can do the job. Otherwise, it may owe severance. | ||
