/**/

Collapse

Announcement

No announcement yet.
Collapse

Employment Law

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    One of the big factors in your friends decision on how to handle the situation is the length of time he has worked for the company. Generally, a company will take the 'make your life miserable ' approach with a longer term employee because an outright termination can be costly, so they resort to tactics like this to try and make the employee quit in order to save on severance costs. I can tell you that embarking on a constructive dismissal case is risky. Firstly, as soon as you walk out, all salary and benefits stop, so you have no income. If you win the constructive dismissal suit, you get all the money at the end, less the significant legal fees (generally 20% of the total award). Total time for a constructive dismissal case can be 1 year or more. In the mean time, you have to look for a new job anyway to mitigate your damages. If you lose the case, you get nothing and in some cases, the company can even sue to recover their legal costs, so you'd end up in the hole. If your friend is a short term employee, there is little to be gained as most of it will end of going to the lawyer, if they take the case in the first place.

    If he is getting this kind of treatment, then the writing is on the wall. He can either wait them out for a severance, provoke them a little (which is risky if you don't know what you are doing), or he could even ask for a severance package. One way or another, the company is going to get him out, so his goal should be try and get some money in the process to help with his transition to another job. Negotiating an exit package is far better than launching a constructive dismissal suit.

    As with all posts before, a consult with a good lawyer will help him. I'd steer clear of the ones that would talk him into a constructive dismissal suit and listen to the ones that would help him try and get a negotiated severance deal.

    My 2 cents.
    Proud member of the Prune Juice Army.

    Comment


    • #17
      I'm not sure what the point of your post is. If it's intended to determine whether I'm an introvert or an extrovert, let me save you some time. I'm a extrovert, who's shy. As for posting on legal matters, I do so to educate those who have an interest in learning more about the law. I'm certainly not looking for business, since I'm retired and definitely not practicing. Hopefully, my posts on legal issues are of interest to a few of the TGN crowd.

      Originally posted by OKHC View Post
      Hi, this is just an observation, that lawyer Seki-San, who makes a posting here every 1600 days, and that lawyer mpare, who makes a posting here every 6 hours, provided some commentary. Maybe we should have a poll about the ratio of introverts to extroverts here.
      This isn't a dress rehearsal. Enjoy yourself. There's no do-over.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mpare View Post
        I'm not sure what the point of your post is. If it's intended to determine whether I'm an introvert or an extrovert, let me save you some time. I'm a extrovert, who's shy. As for posting on legal matters, I do so to educate those who have an interest in learning more about the law. I'm certainly not looking for business, since I'm retired and definitely not practicing. Hopefully, my posts on legal issues are of interest to a few of the TGN crowd.
        Your posts are always of interest, legal and others. I'm glad that you are were not put off by some of the replys to your comments in the Trump thread.

        Comment


        • #19
          I wasn't put off at all. A reasonable and animated debate has a way of focusing an argument and testing the legitimacy of one's position and refining one's views.

          Originally posted by dufresne View Post

          Your posts are always of interest, legal and others. I'm glad that you are were not put off by some of the replys to your comments in the Trump thread.
          This isn't a dress rehearsal. Enjoy yourself. There's no do-over.

          Comment


          • #20
            Late to this discussion, perhaps because it originated long before I became a TGN'er.

            Regarding constructive dismissal cases based on changes to job duties, the case of Jodoin v Nissan Canada (2014) is one that is cited frequently and is easy to understand. Here is a link to a newspaper article explaining it:

            Comment


            • #21

              This annual summary of important employment law cases will interest some of you.

              This isn't a dress rehearsal. Enjoy yourself. There's no do-over.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mpare View Post
                This annual summary of important employment law cases will interest some of you.

                http://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/44297
                Thanks but those referring to the link should remember that these are 2016 cases.

                For example the Oudin decision has effectively been overturned by the North v Metaswitch Networks Corporation decision of earlier this year.

                Just a demonstration that despite what some 'conservative' judges might adhere to, the Constitution, and indeed the law is more in the phrase of the Edwards ('The Persons Case') a "living tree".

                Comment


                • #23
                  Thanks. You're right. The law is ever changing though incrementally and usually in very predictable ways. Every now and the, though, we're surprised. As for North v. Metaswitch, this commentary, Arthur, will be of interest to you in the unlikely event that you hadn't seen it.



                  Originally posted by Arthur Dailey View Post

                  Thanks but those referring to the link should remember that these are 2016 cases.

                  For example the Oudin decision has effectively been overturned by the North v Metaswitch Networks Corporation decision of earlier this year.

                  Just a demonstration that despite what some 'conservative' judges might adhere to, the Constitution, and indeed the law is more in the phrase of the Edwards ('The Persons Case') a "living tree".
                  Last edited by mpare; Dec 22, 2017, 10:12 AM.
                  This isn't a dress rehearsal. Enjoy yourself. There's no do-over.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    This commentary on refusing dangerous work is a helpful reminder that the employee's subjective concerns must also be objectively reasonable.

                    Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc. Hassan v City of Ottawa (OC Transpo), 2019 OHSTC 8 confirms the principle that an employee’s belief in a work-related threat that is purely subjective and hypothetical will not allow the employee to invoke the exceptional remedy under the Canada Labour Code to refuse to work. […]
                    This isn't a dress rehearsal. Enjoy yourself. There's no do-over.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mpare View Post
                      This commentary on refusing dangerous work is a helpful reminder that the employee's subjective concerns must also be objectively reasonable.

                      http://www.slaw.ca/2019/10/10/refusi...-the-beholder/
                      I presume the employee, as a bus driver for the City of Ottawa, was a union member, There was no mention in the article of the union's involvement in this case. I find that odd, as most times we hear of unions, rightly or wrongly, supporting workers in such circumstances.

                      Can we read into this that the union did not support the worker's claim?

                      Would be interesting to know if the employer took any disciplinary actions against the worker.

                      Fortunately there are no rules limiting the number of golf balls you can carry during a match!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        This case commentary will be of interest to some TGNers. It examines the obligation of an employer to an employee with a serious alcohol problem.

                        Employer Cannot Turn Blind Eye to Employee’s Disability – Slaw
                        Last edited by mpare; Apr 12, 2021, 11:12 AM.
                        This isn't a dress rehearsal. Enjoy yourself. There's no do-over.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mpare View Post
                          This case commentary will be of interest to some TGNers. It examines the obligation of an employer to an employee with a serious alcohol problem.

                          Employer Cannot Turn Blind Eye to Employee’s Disability – Slaw
                          That's an interesting article. We had an employee with the same problem. Had to send him home in a cab on one occasion where he showed up late, aggressive and just reeking of booze. He came in the next day and offered me his resignation. I told him that he needed help and losing a job is only going to make matters worse for him. We gave him an unpaid leave. His father, also in the insurance business, funded a treatment facility. He returned to work about three months later. He resigned a couple of years later to go to work with his father to take over his business. I met the father after at a business function. He recognized my name, introduced himself to me. And thanked me for saving his son's life. Pretty profound emotional moment. He had tears in his eyes and so did I. Sometimes you have to find a way to do the right thing, even if it's not really best for the firm.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 68shark View Post

                            That's an interesting article. We had an employee with the same problem. Had to send him home in a cab on one occasion where he showed up late, aggressive and just reeking of booze. He came in the next day and offered me his resignation. I told him that he needed help and losing a job is only going to make matters worse for him. We gave him an unpaid leave. His father, also in the insurance business, funded a treatment facility. He returned to work about three months later. He resigned a couple of years later to go to work with his father to take over his business. I met the father after at a business function. He recognized my name, introduced himself to me. And thanked me for saving his son's life. Pretty profound emotional moment. He had tears in his eyes and so did I. Sometimes you have to find a way to do the right thing, even if it's not really best for the firm.
                            Kudos to you for doing the right thing.

                            Alcoholism is indeed protected under the OHRC as an 'illness'.

                            And employers have a 'duty to inquire' if they notice changes in an employee's attitude, behaviour, demeanor, performance, etc.

                            We are awaiting precedents regarding accommodation for addiction to nicotine/tobacco.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              You, sir, are a good and decent man.

                              Originally posted by 68shark View Post

                              That's an interesting article. We had an employee with the same problem. Had to send him home in a cab on one occasion where he showed up late, aggressive and just reeking of booze. He came in the next day and offered me his resignation. I told him that he needed help and losing a job is only going to make matters worse for him. We gave him an unpaid leave. His father, also in the insurance business, funded a treatment facility. He returned to work about three months later. He resigned a couple of years later to go to work with his father to take over his business. I met the father after at a business function. He recognized my name, introduced himself to me. And thanked me for saving his son's life. Pretty profound emotional moment. He had tears in his eyes and so did I. Sometimes you have to find a way to do the right thing, even if it's not really best for the firm.
                              This isn't a dress rehearsal. Enjoy yourself. There's no do-over.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 68shark View Post

                                That's an interesting article. We had an employee with the same problem. Had to send him home in a cab on one occasion where he showed up late, aggressive and just reeking of booze. He came in the next day and offered me his resignation. I told him that he needed help and losing a job is only going to make matters worse for him. We gave him an unpaid leave. His father, also in the insurance business, funded a treatment facility. He returned to work about three months later. He resigned a couple of years later to go to work with his father to take over his business. I met the father after at a business function. He recognized my name, introduced himself to me. And thanked me for saving his son's life. Pretty profound emotional moment. He had tears in his eyes and so did I. Sometimes you have to find a way to do the right thing, even if it's not really best for the firm.
                                Thanks for the story . . . very well done. Very decent, you should be proud of yourself.
                                If you think it's hard to meet new people, try picking up the wrong golf ball.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Latest TGN Reviews


                                Collapse

                                PGA Leaderboard


                                Collapse

                                Today's Birthdays


                                Working...
                                X