Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie
Oh it's very accurate. Deal with it all the time as a manager in a large multinational. We get a significant amount of training every year on it. You don't get to just terminate. There is paperwork and explanation and usually to top it off and exit agreement signed and package given. To quote one source that agrees the companies approach.
"So there really is no such thing as “at-will” employment except for how long the employee decides to stay. From the employer’s perspective, the employment relationship is really a blend of statutory, contract/policy and circumstance."
http://www.hrexaminer.com/why-at-wil...isn%E2%80%99t/
The very good example the author gives is a company with a progressive discipline policy. It undermines at will because you aren't truly practicing at will as a company. You have laid out very specifically how one gets terminated in the company. Heck in some cases performance reviews do the same as they serve as the start to the discipline system in companies.
I've never worked for a company that didn't have progressive discipline.
So in short as the author says unless the manual and practice is only EEO statements and benefit and leave explanation you are unlikely to truly be an at will employer...no matter what you believe. It's why HR departments and company lawyers exist...so you hire and fire properly without getting the company in trouble. And it extends far beyond just your protected classes.
Also awarded damages can indeed be reinstatement of the job. |
I appreciate that this is a late and thoroughly off-topic reply yet I feel compelled to lost it nevertheless:
This article regarding employment law in the United States is entirely unhelpful to you if you manage employees in Canada. Generally speaking, there is no "employment at will" in Canada like there is in the US (where employers may dismiss an employee without cause and without any notice [or without payment in lieu of notice.]) In Canada, an employer who dismisses an employee without cause must at least provide the statutory minimum notice period (or payment in lieu of).
Therefore, the article you posted has no relevance whatsoever to emoyment law in Canada.
That said, you are correct in the sense that it is prudent for employers in Canada to thoroughly document all employee misconduct because it improves the likelihood of one day proving "for cause" dismissal and avoiding paying damages for notice period. But the conclusion regarding progressive discipline is completely wrong: progressive discipline is a prudent policy for Canadian employers because it strengthens an eventual case for "for cause" dismissal in the future.
And lastly, you are incorrect regarding the authority of a Canadian court to order reinstatement of a dismissed employee (in the absence of a "just cause" clause in the contract.) It simply does not exist.
Your company really ought to reassess the labour relations advice it provided to its managers in Canada.