#Letstalk (unless it's about our own employees)

[White Out 403]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/n...alth-1.3950097

Grand Falls radio host says Bell Media station fired her for mental health issues
Former employee Maria McLean calls 'Bell Let's Talk' a tough pill to swallow so soon after her firing

Incredible this happens still in 2016. Thank God bell is doing this charitable effort to get the information out about lacking empathy, you know, like bell did.

[Mazrim]

It's unfortunate that Bell only got in contact with her after CBC contacted them. It's also strange that they said it wasn't because of the mental health issue, but wouldn't tell her the real reason.

Three weeks severance for less than a year at the company is pretty good...would she still have been on probation at that point?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

It's unfortunate that Bell only got in contact with her after CBC contacted them. It's also strange that they said it wasn't because of the mental health issue, but wouldn't tell her the real reason.

Three weeks severance for less than a year at the company is pretty good...would she still have been on probation at that point?

Not probation necessarily, but a lot of companies pay to fire without cause and because they pay that they don't have to say why they're doing it. Firing with cause is not easy from what I understand, so they generally pay the 2-3 weeks and then they don't have to discuss the reasoning.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/n...alth-1.3950097



Incredible this happens still in 2016. Thank God bell is doing this charitable effort to get the information out about lacking empathy, you know, like bell did.

One side to every story? I find out hard to believe a person who got fired said it wasn't fair. None out of ten people I've let go said it was unfair.

I can't see a manager going "you're too depressed. I'm letting you go"

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

It's unfortunate that Bell only got in contact with her after CBC contacted them. It's also strange that they said it wasn't because of the mental health issue, but wouldn't tell her the real reason.

Three weeks severance for less than a year at the company is pretty good...would she still have been on probation at that point?

I'm going to speak in generalities here but apply it to this case.

The reason they likely didn't give a reason is because they terminated her over her mental illness issues. That's a violation of the labour code and human rights act in Canada. So to skirt that issue they likely just kept the reason ambiguous and if pressed could attempt to label it as a "job fit" issue.

You can fire anyone in Canada (assuming you don't have a contract spelling out your terms) if you provide them with severance that's appropriate for their tenure, age, and likelihood to regain employment at the same wage/job. While there's a lot of criteria and things that change the formula, generally speaking, 1 month per year of service is the norm. So if you had an employee you just plain disliked and wanted gone, you could bring them in your office and say "hey Ed, you've been here 8 years, it's not working out anymore, we've decided to go in a different direction. We're giving you a package that's 8 months of your current salary, good luck" you are more than likely fine legally and have no other obligations to the employee.

Now, if they had brought her in and said "hey, you're still on probation and we can't accommodate your mental health issues, here are your papers, get out" you've violated this persons human rights and labour law. Probation or not.

I'm not fairly certain how a law suit would work, but if this lady can demonstrate the employer liked her, had faith in her, and appeared to be advancing her in the company until she raised her mental health issues there might be some grounds for legal action but that's not my field of expertise.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I'm going to speak in generalities here but apply it to this case.

The reason they likely didn't give a reason is because they terminated her over her mental illness issues. That's a violation of the labour code and human rights act in Canada. So to skirt that issue they likely just kept the reason ambiguous and if pressed could attempt to label it as a "job fit" issue.

You can fire anyone in Canada (assuming you don't have a contract spelling out your terms) if you provide them with severance that's appropriate for their tenure, age, and likelihood to regain employment at the same wage/job. While there's a lot of criteria and things that change the formula, generally speaking, 1 month per year of service is the norm. So if you had an employee you just plain disliked and wanted gone, you could bring them in your office and say "hey Ed, you've been here 8 years, it's not working out anymore, we've decided to go in a different direction. We're giving you a package that's 8 months of your current salary, good luck" you are more than likely fine legally and have no other obligations to the employee.

Now, if they had brought her in and said "hey, you're still on probation and we can't accommodate your mental health issues, here are your papers, get out" you've violated this persons human rights and labour law. Probation or not.

I'm not fairly certain how a law suit would work, but if this lady can demonstrate the employer liked her, had faith in her, and appeared to be advancing her in the company until she raised her mental health issues there might be some grounds for legal action but that's not my field of expertise.

No, the reason they didn't give a reason is because they paid her a severance to avoid that conversation. I can see that rationale because of course no one wants to be let go. Rather than have to have a discussion about whatever the reasons are, they'd rather avoid it.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, the reason they didn't give a reason is because they paid her a severance to avoid that conversation. I can see that rationale because of course no one wants to be let go. Rather than have to have a discussion about whatever the reasons are, they'd rather avoid it.

Yeah that's sort of what I said Slava. There's a core reason for the termination; it's either job fit or it's her mental health problem. They provided no reason because they very likely terminated her for her mental health issue. Most terminations in my experience aren't a mystery.

[Street Pharmacist]

Sorry resurrection, but that's giant speculation that's likely waaaaay off base. What reason do you have to believe it other than the person that got fired says so? How many people aren't mad after being let go?

I've been accused of many awful time after letting people go after giving severance and without cause. It's all been entirely untrue. I was even accused of firing someone because they weren't the right gender, even though the person I hired to replace them was the same gender. People get mad when they're fired and they lash out. It happens

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

One side to every story? I find out hard to believe a person who got fired said it wasn't fair. None out of ten people I've let go said it was unfair.

I can't see a manager going "you're too depressed. I'm letting you go"

If you read the story, she said she was terminated 1 hour after presenting her manager with a doctors note that she needed 2 weeks off work to adjust to medication related to her mental illness.

edit: I'm only going by what information we have so far. If more comes to light, I'll happily adjust my opinion.

So far what we have is one sided yes, but all the info we have is:
- 1st year with company
- Recent promotion being discussed
- Provided doctors note for 2 weeks off related to mental health
- Terminated 1 hour later

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

They provided no reason because they very likely terminated her for her mental health issue. Most terminations in my experience aren't a mystery.

Yeah, no. This makes no sense. If you're terminating without cause, the entire point is not having to have a reason. It's at-will employment.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, no. This makes no sense. If you're terminating without cause, the entire point is not having to have a reason. It's at-will employment.

Termination without cause is a very small % of terminations. Termination without cause are usually things like lay offs, downsizing, etc.

Terminations are usually a result of a culminating incident or a breech of employer trust

[killer_carlson]

I'm taking my colleagues at the office for lunch today to talk mental health. Not all can make it, but it's a conversation that we can have as a group and see where it leads.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Termination without cause is a very small % of terminations. Termination without cause are usually things like lay offs, downsizing, etc.

Terminations are usually a result of a culminating incident or a breech of employer trust

Can you provide evidence to back that up? I have seen second-hand (my wife did the firing in question) where there was extremely solid reasons to fire with cause, but rather than getting into a discussion/argument about the incident(s) they paid the severance and fired without cause. And these weren't cases of minor insubordination either; major, painfully obvious issues where most people would fire people for this kind of behaviour. The reality is that not getting into the discussion is just easier and probably better for the company (no legal challenge, no discussion of "it won't ever happen again" or whatever) and better for the individual (they get a couple weeks pay as opposed to nothing).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Termination without cause is a very small % of terminations.

Seriously, you just make stuff up.

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/34671...+Without+Cause

Just Cause is very difficult to prove and the overwhelming majority of terminations are "without just cause"

http://employmentlaw101.ca/01-overvi...without-cause/

The majority of terminations of employment in Ontario are without cause. The employer does not need a good reason to end the employment relationship and, therefore, is not required to prove that the employee did something wrong in order to justify its decision to dismiss the employee.

http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/c...9/chylb175.htm

While the majority of employment relationships do not end with a dismissal of an employee for cause, some unfortunately do.

That took ten seconds on Google. This isn't controversial. In the majority of cases, it's easier to pay severance than to try to get into a fight about whether cause exists.

[PepsiFree]

Isn't it entirely likely they weren't that happy with her and "in 4 days I'm taking two weeks off" was enough of a catalyst to pull the trigger?

The dicussion about taking over the morning show in 6 months doesn't seem like much evidence towards anything, I've had conversations with an employer where we talked about career paths within the company and they've suggested certain roles to aim for, I never took that as "they're giving me a promotion!". It's a completely one-sided story.

She might be right, but it's bad form to make a judgement with so little to go off.

[kerriffic]

Also surprised it's not more of an issue but why would her doctor put the diagnosis for her time off on a doctor's note? That is utterly stupid as her employer had no reason to know the exact reason she had to be off. Anytime I've gotten a note from my doctor for whatever reason it's never said the reason why I'm off or need time off as it could be construed as a violation of Dr patient confidentiality. He might put down physical limitations but not the cause.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Seriously, you just make stuff up.

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/34671...+Without+Cause


http://employmentlaw101.ca/01-overvi...without-cause/


http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/c...9/chylb175.htm


That took ten seconds on Google. This isn't controversial. In the majority of cases, it's easier to pay severance than to try to get into a fight about whether cause exists.

I deal in a unionized work environment that has just cause in the collective agreement, so my personal experience obviously may vary from the non unionized world. If you wanted to provide me with specific numbers on just cause vs without cause terminations I'd entertain that as well but the link you cited has no sources to back up their claim whatsoever.

[OutOfTheCube]

I never worked in the radio industry, but I went to school at SAIT for it and know several people who did. From what I hear, this is about par for the course for how they treat employees.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Isn't it entirely likely they weren't that happy with her and "in 4 days I'm taking two weeks off" was enough of a catalyst to pull the trigger?

The dicussion about taking over the morning show in 6 months doesn't seem like much evidence towards anything, I've had conversations with an employer where we talked about career paths within the company and they've suggested certain roles to aim for, I never took that as "they're giving me a promotion!". It's a completely one-sided story.

She might be right, but it's bad form to make a judgement with so little to go off.

This is exactly the stigma "lets talk" is attempting to end. If she had broken her legs and needed time off no one would have questioned it. But because its mental health she should have had a stiff upper lip and toughed it out?

[CaramonLS]

I manage HR for both union and non-union work areas. Unionized terms are and entirely different animal all together. Most CBAs don't allow the employer to fire without cause.

But that doesn't look like it applies in this case and it probably was a "without cause" termination. Her letter likely gives no specific reason and just gives a # of weeks severance.

It may have been planned in advance. Timing around this looks pretty terrible, but if you can get a reviewed term letter for someone in an hour, that is a pretty damned fast HR department.