Employment Law Issues (9:V): Difference between revisions
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Employment Law Issues (9:V) (view source)
Revision as of 21:37, 27 September 2022
, 27 September 2022→a) Common Law
| Line 988: | Line 988: | ||
Employees are not required to return to a position where the fundamental terms of their job have changed or where they have been maligned such that the relationship cannot be restored. Accusations of dishonesty in negotiations or radically limited and uncertain terms in offers may result in reemployment being found to be unreasonable. The employee is not expected to act in the employer’s best interest to the detriment of their own interests. For example, if an employee was ill at the time of dismissal they are not required to make strenuous efforts to find new employment. Similarly, an employee in the late stages of pregnancy may not be required to seek new employment until several months after the birth of their child. The employee’s perception of what is reasonable is usually given more weight than that of the employer. | Employees are not required to return to a position where the fundamental terms of their job have changed or where they have been maligned such that the relationship cannot be restored. Accusations of dishonesty in negotiations or radically limited and uncertain terms in offers may result in reemployment being found to be unreasonable. The employee is not expected to act in the employer’s best interest to the detriment of their own interests. For example, if an employee was ill at the time of dismissal they are not required to make strenuous efforts to find new employment. Similarly, an employee in the late stages of pregnancy may not be required to seek new employment until several months after the birth of their child. The employee’s perception of what is reasonable is usually given more weight than that of the employer. | ||
An employee’s failure to | An employee’s failure to accept a job during their search for employment may not mean they failed to meet the requirements of mitigation if they were overqualified for the job; see ''Luchuk v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc.'', 2016 BCSC 830. | ||
In a legal dispute, the onus of proof as to whether the claimant former employee has properly taken efforts to mitigate their damages generally falls on the defendant former employer. | In a legal dispute, the onus of proof as to whether the claimant former employee has properly taken efforts to mitigate their damages generally falls on the defendant former employer. | ||
