We talked to Greg about his employer’s policies and what training and awareness was provided. We also verified that Greg had no previous verbal or written warnings. The company did have a written policy around computer usage and e-mail, however, neglected to train or have a sign off from its employees. The information was posted on the company’s website buried in a 250 page employee manual.

After a couple of phone calls to Greg’s former employer identifying the potential for wrongful dismissal, two week’s later they agreed to pay a lump sum of 12 week’s for damages This pay out constituted two week’s notice and 10 week’s severance with vacation pay of 4% on the notice. They also agreed to continue benefit coverage for the twelve week time period. Had Greg been let go without cause, based on his service, his employer would have had to provide notice or pay in lieu of notice of two (2) weeks as a minimum and provided benefits during this time. The Record of Employment (ROE) was re-issued in a manner that allowed a favorable review to be eligible for EI benefits. The employer also agreed to provide a positive reference for Greg and the reason for dismissal would be communicated as downsizing. We were also in a position to request reinstatement of Greg’s employment; however, Greg did not wish to pursue this option.

Here are the details:

• Greg was employed by a large bearing manufacturer in an entry level administrative position following graduation from University
• Greg received an e-mail that contained disparaging remarks about the company and particular managers
• He forwarded this message to a co-worker commenting how bad it was and someone was in for it
• Following an investigation launched by the company several employees who were identified as participating in spreading this communication were dismissed for cause including Greg
• The company claimed in Greg’s termination letter that they had a zero tolerance policy on misuse of the company’s technology
• They claimed that Greg had deliberately maligned the company and it’s employees based on his actions
• Greg was not provided any notice or severance provision based on being terminated for cause, he was paid out vacation pay
• In addition the Record of Employment to be issued would indicate “Fired” and the company would go on to report to Employment Insurance that Greg contributed to his termination by his own actions and was in gross breach of company policy
• It was likely that Greg would not be eligible for Employment Insurance benefits based on being terminated with cause

We worked with Rochelle’s employer and outlined a letter to first educate them on not being able to have a claw back on the whole amount which could result in not meeting the minimum standard and requested vacation pay on the severance portion as well.

Here are the facts:

• Rochelle was employed by a large Financial Services provider specializing in commercial auto insurance
• Rochelle drove on average 4 hours a day for her job to visit clients
• She had been involved in two car accident within a 6 month time period
• The accidents that occurred did not include any charges to Rochelle
• After the second car accident she was advised in writing any future accidents would mean providing her own transportation and insurance
• A third accident followed weeks later in extreme weather conditions where no charges were laid
  Rochelle immediately put her personal vehicle on the road with her own insurance policy
• Upon reporting this third car accident to her employer she was abruptly terminated
• With 12 years of service and good performance she was provided a termination package with the maximum notice of 8 weeks and twice the legal severance of 24 weeks for a total of 32 weeks pay plus vacation pay of 8% on any vacation earned and not taken and vacation pay on the notice
• Salary continuance with benefits was also offered, however, the provision included a 50% claw back of the package along with termination of benefits upon new employment

Even if the claw back was intended for the severance portion only should Rochelle find employment within 20 weeks her employer was valuing her service with the absolute minimum pay out. We also identified that they were in breach of their agreement with Rochelle with respect to the car accidents and this in fact could be construed as wrongful dismissal. In addition Rochelle had not been in the job market for over a decade and the worst economic decline was hitting hard, she would need significant assistance to find newemployment and a larger sum awarded to extend her time line to find new employment. The employer did provide a minimal career transition service with a market value of $1,000.00. One week after issuing the letter the outcome resulted in an additional 8 week’s severance plus vacation pay on this amount and a top line outplacement service valued at $4,000.00. The claw back was removed on the pay out and the termination clause on the benefits was revised to be based on equivalent or better offering of benefits with new employment.

Here are the facts

• Ted worked at a large soft drink manufacturer and after being employed for six months in a management position and was let go due to restructuring
• The company “advanced” Ted two week’s vacation time in his first three months and in his final pay deducted that vacation
• Ted was awarded a fair notice and severance package otherwise

Here are the facts:

• Kevin worked at a large plastic bag producer and was let go in a major downsizing with falling sales in a bad economy compounded by an environmentally unfriendly product offering
• When he was let go he was offered a package that provided paid notice and severance through salary continuance and an outplacement provision
• In the offering was also a significant claw back on the entire package, a number of other conditions around benefits along with the immediate termination of some benefits
• The claw back structure made it so the offering fell below the minimum legal entitlement
• The release was also in breach of employment standards immediately terminating any rights to claim on health benefits even though the notice period had yet to be served

Here are the facts:

• Chris was solicited through a former boss and left his current employer of five years to accept a Senior Marketing Management role in another province, he was provided a re-location package, signing bonus and company car
• After several months Chris wanted to put down more permanent roots in the way of purchasing a home and got further assurances of success and longevity from his employer before he made the purchase of a new construction home
• With less than a year of service Chris was let go based on the import market dramatically softening and given one week’s notice – period
• He had just taken occupancy of his house and now held a mortgage with no job and no car with which to find a job and was already financially maxed out with all the associated new home ownership costs