Termination Pay Required?

[HOOT250]

If I put in my notice for four weeks (I am management, and contract asks for not less than two weeks) and they tell me not to come in AKA termination without cause.

Does section 6.2 apply? Or does 6.1(d) override it? And if it overrides it why is 6.2 even in the contract?

6. TERMINATION

6.1. The Agent’s employment may be terminated in the following manner:
(a) by the Agent, at any time, giving Employer not less than two weeks’ notice in writing;
(b) by Employer, at any time, for cause, without notice or payment of compensation or damages of any kind;
(c) by Employer, at any time during the probation period, without notice or payment of compensation or damages of any kind; or
(d) by Employer, at any time without cause, provided that Employer will, at its option, provide written notice of termination, payment of wages in lieu or a combination of notice and payment of wages in lieu, equal to one week of
notice per completed year of service, less required withholdings, up to a maximum of eight weeks.

6.2. In the event of termination by the Agent under subparagraph 6.1(a), Employer may, at its option, waive the notice and pay to the Agent the amount of wages, less
required deductions, which the Agent would have been entitled to have the Agent worked during the notice period.

 

[Proserpina]

If I put in my notice for four weeks (I am management, and contract asks for not less than two weeks) and they tell me not to come in AKA termination without cause.

Does section 6.2 apply? Or does 6.1(d) override it? And if it overrides it why is 6.2 even in the contract?

6. TERMINATION

6.1. The Agent’s employment may be terminated in the following manner:
(a) by the Agent, at any time, giving Employer not less than two weeks’ notice in writing;
(b) by Employer, at any time, for cause, without notice or payment of compensation or damages of any kind;
(c) by Employer, at any time during the probation period, without notice or payment of compensation or damages of any kind; or
(d) by Employer, at any time without cause, provided that Employer will, at its option, provide written notice of termination, payment of wages in lieu or a combination of notice and payment of wages in lieu, equal to one week of
notice per completed year of service, less required withholdings, up to a maximum of eight weeks.

6.2. In the event of termination by the Agent under subparagraph 6.1(a), Employer may, at its option, waive the notice and pay to the Agent the amount of wages, less
required deductions, which the Agent would have been entitled to have the Agent worked during the notice period.

Your location is important.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It appears on the surface they owe you up to two weeks pay. We are not privy to other circumstances or factors.

 

[cbg]

You omitted to list your state, which is important. However, even without the state, I am very reluctant to try to interpret the enforceability of a single section taken out of context when I don't even know what document it's been taken from.

 

[eerelations]

If you're in Canada I can help you, however, you do need to say where you are.

 

[HOOT250]

If you're in Canada I can help you, however, you do need to say where you are.

I'm in British Columbia. Thanks!

 

[eerelations]

OK then you must be paid through the notice period. This is not contract law, it's not specified in employment standards legislation, it's common law. I recommend you tell your former boss (nicely, politely) that common law dictates you must be paid your notice period. If he says no, then you have to decide whether it's worth paying a lawyer to say the same thing to your boss again. (Your decision will be based on just how much two weeks' pay is vs the lawyer's fees.) Good luck.

 

[HOOT250]

OK then you must be paid through the notice period. This is not contract law, it's not specified in employment standards legislation, it's common law. I recommend you tell your former boss (nicely, politely) that common law dictates you must be paid your notice period. If he says no, then you have to decide whether it's worth paying a lawyer to say the same thing to your boss again. (Your decision will be based on just how much two weeks' pay is vs the lawyer's fees.) Good luck.

Would that apply even though I gave four weeks notice, as I felt I should give more as I was in management? They keep comparing it to if someone gave 3-6 months notice, but I feel 4 weeks is reasonable where months and month is not.

Even in the contract is says "...not less than two weeks’ notice" so I figured 4 like I had done at my previous jobs would be fair to all parties.

 

[HOOT250]

Could you also explain the purpose of 6.2? I think that's what has been so confusing. It seems to be that unless they get rid of you WITH cause they must pay you your notice. The Regional Manager even confirmed it when he told me to leave the office, but now the Owner of the company says he doesn't have the authority to make that call.

They say 6.1(d) overrides it because they can terminate anytime without cause and pay me the bare minimum even though I gave them 4 weeks and was willing, and needed to work until the end of my notice. I moved cities to take this job, Regional Manager became very authoritarian and abusive of my employees - singling out one lady and constantly calling her a bitch or backstabber to me (I actually have him on recording admitting it). He even ignored a very serious allegation that two employees felt abused and harassed, but took the owner almost 3 weeks to even acknowledge it. I couldn't stand to be there much longer so I put in my notice and was going to find something in that 4 weeks.

I have a lot of documentation: emails, text messages, notes, and a voice recording. I'm not happy they went this route as I felt I was being fair, even though I was not happy and felt threatened by the Regional Manager as soon as I told him I would be leaving.

 

[eerelations]

According to common law, four weeks is payable if you worked there more than a year.

6.2 is simply spelling out what common law already dictates. So the common law requirement to pay out your notice period (should the employer not require you to work during the notice period) is confirmed by the contract.

 

[HOOT250]

According to common law, four weeks is payable if you worked there more than a year.

6.2 is simply spelling out what common law already dictates. So the common law requirement to pay out your notice period (should the employer not require you to work during the notice period) is confirmed by the contract.

So if I worked there less than a year common law does not exists?

I gave my notice at 8.5 months.

 

[eerelations]

No, it's not that common law doesn't exist, it's that what constitutes "reasonable notice" in common law is calculated by length of service. So if you were there a year as a manager, then four weeks would be about right. Less than a year, maybe less than four weeks. But you also have a contract. So four weeks might not be unreasonable. You should expect to get at least three weeks.

However, all of this is moot (i.e., a waste of time) if you haven't even submitted your resignation yet. You need to do that first and see what happens before you can even think about anything else.

 

[HOOT250]

No, it's not that common law doesn't exist, it's that what constitutes "reasonable notice" in common law is calculated by length of service. So if you were there a year as a manager, then four weeks would be about right. Less than a year, maybe less than four weeks. But you also have a contract. So four weeks might not be unreasonable. You should expect to get at least three weeks.

However, all of this is moot (i.e., a waste of time) if you haven't even submitted your resignation yet. You need to do that first and see what happens before you can even think about anything else.

I have put in my notice, and they are claiming 6.1(d) applies, even though they claim it could be under 6.1(b)

More detail could be given but here is the gist of it - sorry for the length!

(deleted)

Now I question these emails about myself and find it interesting that it took them less than 48 hours to get some emails and decided they "could" fire me with cause, yet someone has complaints about bullying/harassment and it takes them 18 days just to acknowledge it. They were claiming I wasn't doing my job (I have a list of everything I completed) and that I was "bad mouthing" the Regional Manager, however, employees were alleging he was calling me unprofessional and bad mouthing me because after 3 days of him not sending out an email about my resignation I told the group.

Could I take this to small claims court myself? Or should I hire a lawyer?

What kind of damages could I go for? Just my pay from February 28th to March 15th? Could I sue for cost of moving as I will now be moving back to the city I moved here from (just for this job)? Management position with a designation in my field.

Leaving money aside could I go anywhere else regarding the bullying/harassing they ignored and then the harassment I received from the Regional Manager? I have him on tape admitting that the service they hired the abusive employee was more important than anything else.

Thanks again for your time and help, it has already given me a bit clearer picture of where to start!!!

 

[eerelations]

Most of the above wasn't necessary.

Did you submit your notice in writing? Do you have evidence of when you submitted it? Did they "fire" you after you submitted the notice?

If your answers are yes to the above questions, and if your notice was for four weeks, and they walked you out the door the day you submitted your notice, then they owe you three to four weeks' pay. Small claims court is not the venue for this. You need an employment lawyer. What I said before still stands: you first need to decide if the cost of a lawyer is worth the three to four weeks' pay you will end up getting sometime down the road.

I don't see that you have any cause of action for any of the other things you have listed.

 

[HOOT250]

Most of the above wasn't necessary.

Did you submit your notice in writing? Do you have evidence of when you submitted it? Did they "fire" you after you submitted the notice?

If your answers are yes to the above questions, and if your notice was for four weeks, and they walked you out the door the day you submitted your notice, then they owe you three to four weeks' pay. Small claims court is not the venue for this. You need an employment lawyer. What I said before still stands: you first need to decide if the cost of a lawyer is worth the three to four weeks' pay you will end up getting sometime down the road.

I don't see that you have any cause of action for any of the other things you have listed.

Sorry I wasn't sure if a back story would help.

Yes I submitted my notice in writing via email. Yes I have a copy of this email and a reply from the Regional Manager. Yes they fired me 4 days after my notice was given.

I guess my next step is to talk to an employment lawyer for fees and go from there. But just to confirm I will only be able to sue them for wages, no other expenses or payments?

Thank you!