Termination of an employee when a company is sold

[You Need a Thneed]

I'm looking at the employment standards on the government's website, and there is a clause saying that special conditions apply when a company is sold for when an employee is given notice of termination.

However, I can't find on there what those special conditions are.

Also, I'm now looking for work, starting in January 2014 or earlier.

[Northendzone]

So are you getting paid by them until jan 2014?

[You Need a Thneed]

Sale goes through at end of the month. I've been working there for 12.5 years straight, which puts me at 8 weeks of notice, or pay, minimum.

[V]

I would never settle for less than a month per year of service. That's pretty standard in my industry.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by V

I would never settle for less than a month per year of service. That's pretty standard in my industry.

That's usually only for management positions.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Sale goes through at end of the month. I've been working there for 12.5 years straight, which puts me at 8 weeks of notice, or pay, minimum.

You should entitled to that, even in a sale

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by V

I would never settle for less than a month per year of service. That's pretty standard in my industry.

8 weeks is the minimum for an employee with his service this could be either via notice, termination pay or a combination of notice and termination pay (e.g. 4 weeks notice with 4 weeks termination pay)http://humanservices.alberta.ca/docu...emp-Layoff.pdf

Of course an employee could negotiate more, these are just the minimums required by law.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

I think he's referring to the employment standards code. A company only has to provide the required notice (or severance in lieu of notice) as set out by the employment standards. Employees don't really have the right to hold out for more. If an employer chooses to provide more than the minimum, that is up to them, but legally, they are only obligated to abide by the minimum as set out by the code.

EDIT: Sorry this was in response to the post by V

[BlackArcher101]

Your 12.5 years of service automatically transfer with the company and is not dependent on who owns it. However, if they desire, they can cancel your employment at any time by giving you the proper notice, pay in lieu of notice, or a mixture of both. As you mentioned, 8 weeks pay for your 12.5 years. Hope they give you more on top of that in a package.

I have never come across a clause which would reduce the basic rights listed above.

[V]

Originally Posted by GettinIggyWithIt

I think he's referring to the employment standards code. A company only has to provide the required notice (or severance in lieu of notice) as set out by the employment standards. Employees don't really have the right to hold out for more. If an employer chooses to provide more than the minimum, that is up to them, but legally, they are only obligated to abide by the minimum as set out by the code.

EDIT: Sorry this was in response to the post by V

For sure, but it's usually not worth it for the company to fight it in court, and I've heard that lawyers will generally fight to get you a month per year of service.

I would absolutely fight it if all I got was 8 weeks after over 12 years.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Your 12.5 years of service automatically transfer with the company and is not dependent on who owns it. However, if they desire, they can cancel your employment at any time by giving you the proper notice, pay in lieu of notice, or a mixture of both. As you mentioned, 8 weeks pay for your 12.5 years. Hope they give you more on top of that in a package.

I have never come across a clause which would reduce the basic rights listed above.

I absolutely agree. And I believe the statement that special rules apply when a business is sold is referring to this fact. If a business is sold, and an employee is kept on, it's considered continuous employment from that point on as well. If they are let go, then the appropriate notice period, based on years of service up to the date of termination should be provided at a minimum. Here's an older article referring to the same: http://www.albertajobcentre.ca/hr-ad...e-entitlement/

A general note - the Employment Standards Code also treats any break in employment of less than 3 months as continuous employment as well.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

Originally Posted by V

For sure, but it's usually not worth it for the company to fight it in court, and I've heard that lawyers will generally fight to get you a month per year of service.

I would absolutely fight it if all I got was 8 weeks after over 12 years.

To be honest, I am not sure what you would be fighting? The company has provided the minimum notice as dictated by the employment standards. I'd be interested to hear what argument these lawyers would be bringing to court?

Actually, the only potential argument that I believe an employee would have is if the company was inconsistent in their application of notice/severance. For example, if some employees were able to negotiate additional time beyond the minimum set out in the code, and others were just provided the minimum. Then, I could see an argument being made based on an inconsistent approach. In that case I could see what you mean.

[V]

IANAL, but a quick search yielded this, which is consistent with my experience. Not saying I've used a lawyer in a severance battle, but stories from our HR department indicate that they will offer a month per year exactly for the reason to avoid these legal battles. I couldn't believe the cheque we wrote a fourth year EIT that I had to let go a couple years ago.

http://www.wrongfullydismissed.com/N..._Strategy.html

I am curious though how the sale of the company would impact this. Quite possibly not in favour of the employee.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

Originally Posted by V

IANAL, but a quick search yielded this, which is consistent with my experience. Not saying I've used a lawyer in a severance battle, but stories from our HR department indicate that they will offer a month per year exactly for the reason to avoid these legal battles. I couldn't believe the cheque we wrote a fourth year EIT that I had to let go a couple years ago.

http://www.wrongfullydismissed.com/N..._Strategy.html

I am curious though how the sale of the company would impact this. Quite possibly not in favour of the employee.

LOL - I'll be honest I had to Google what IANAL meant... Actually I have some experience working with legal on these (HR background) which is why I was interested to hear the arguments might be as I haven't encountered this situation. I'm sure it's possible but would depend on the situation (example, an employee being enticed to move across the country and then being let go could conceivably make a case for more severance than the minimum. That said, also keep in mind that link is from a law firm .

EDIT: Sorry should say thanks for sharing that. I could see how different situations would warrant reconsidering the minimum. Also - I don't think the sale of a business would have any impact on the notice/severance provided as noted by another poster.

[You Need a Thneed]

Thanks for all your responses, guys.

I may try to ask for severance before the company is sold.

[albertGQ]

I got laid off two years ago. Worked at the company for 4.5 years. Got 4.5 months severance pay including a one month notice (where I got paid and still had benefits even though I didn't have to show up for work, before actually getting laid off).

[V]

Whatever happens, it sucks. 12 years is a long time.

Sorry to hear about it, but I hope it works out for you in the end. I hope you find something quick and get to blow that severance package on a sweet Christmas holiday.

[Matty81]

I don't know a ton about the details but I've seen a fair few and I've never heard of anybody taking the minimum unless they are like 1 or 2 year employees. Couple I heard of actually going to court were awarded severance based on service time + how difficult it is for you to get a similar job in the same market. Basically the better your job and the worse the unemployment rate is the more money you're going to get.

And anyway as somebody said, because the employer almost always has to pay more than the minimum and gets stuck with legal fees, they will settle for more if you lawyer up.

[gargamel]

I don't know the rules on terminating your employment, but they definitely aren't allowed to terminate you.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I don't know the rules on terminating your employment, but they definitely aren't allowed to terminate you.

Wait what? You don't know the rules but you know for sure they can't?