Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Firing someone is risky because - even with solid cause - if they fight it, you are likely going to incur more costs defending and explaining your position, than the costs you would incur to simply relieve them of their duties ('lay them off', 'let them go', 'release them without cause').
It is easier (and often less expensive) to simply pay the person the minimum required severance, and let them go without cause, than to fire them.
Are we clear now?
|
"Firing" an employee is rather ambiguous term which means different things to different people. I think it is clearer to look at it this way:
Employment contracts can be terminated, either with cause (no requirement for notice or severance) or without cause (common law & statutory requirement to provide notice and, in some cases, statutory requirement to provide severance).
Employment contracts can also be frustrated (typically by chronic and prolonged absenteeism). In such cases, typically, the employer is only required to provide the employee with statutory notice and severance).
Lastly, employment contracts may be severed, with the employee retaining certain recall rights for a period of time, through a technical lay-off process, usually in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement.