Is this letter grounds for unjust termination? [Archive]

gostinger

Jun 18th, 2009, 08:53 PM

Jon Lai

Jun 18th, 2009, 08:55 PM

Depends what was "discussed" with her "today" but nonetheless that was a very poorly written letter on the management's part.

Sanhedralite

Jun 18th, 2009, 08:58 PM

She should call the Ministry of Labour. May take a few times, a few different calls, but it's worth a shot. Also, check out their site.

gostinger

Jun 18th, 2009, 09:01 PM

The only thing discussed was that she was being terminated as of today.

cgtlky

Jun 18th, 2009, 09:08 PM

IMO: Terminate can be immediate given that employer pay him/her 2 weeks in-leiu of notice (in depend on how the contract was written) but I am not sure if the case apply to part-timer.

Amadaeus

Jun 19th, 2009, 12:03 AM

nalababe

Jun 19th, 2009, 07:29 AM

What would be unjust?

We don't have enough work for the employees we have.
We therefore have too many employees.
Smart move would be to have less employees.

help_questions

Jun 19th, 2009, 07:39 AM

IMO: Terminate can be immediate given that employer pay him/her 2 weeks in-leiu of notice (in depend on how the contract was written) but I am not sure if the case apply to part-timer.

and even if the part timer get 2 weeks pay, it is based on their hours workers. So two weeks for a part timer will likely be less than 2 weeks for a full timer

What would be unjust?

We don't have enough work for the employees we have.
We therefore have too many employees.
Smart move would be to have less employees.

exactly. there was nothing unjust about this termination.

nhui06

Jun 19th, 2009, 09:59 AM

HR Professional can correct if I"m off base here, but "Termination" or "Terminate" is just a term that encompasses many different types of job loss, whether that be a layoff, firing, redundancy, etc.

In other words:

Layoff = Termination
Firing = Termination
Position eliminated = Termination

It's just HR lingo.

The important thing is to ask your friend to make sure the reason code in her Record of Employment (ROE) is correctly stated as a layoff rather than a termination for cause. If it's not set to layoff your friend will have a difficult time receiving EI, and from what you describe this is certainly a layoff. The ROE should reflect that. If not, your friend will have to either confront the company or set the record straight with Service Canada.

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/guide/guide_15.html

Everything you need to know. Part-Time workers are unique though. Not exactly sure how they are treated

robster77

Jun 19th, 2009, 10:34 AM

The word "termination" and layoff mean the same in HR-speak. By the sounds of the letter, your friend was not termination for cause and thus would be eligible for EI if they have the hours.

MoreMiles

Jun 19th, 2009, 09:07 PM

Terminated = ended

Your friend's work ended. That's it. It happens. People can be terminated "without cause"... there is nothing wrong with that.

Jobs are never forever nor guaranteed for life.

Are you trying to argue there was a discrimination? Unjust termination? If not, there is no case.

Sanhedralite

Jun 19th, 2009, 11:28 PM

Also, someone is being brought in from another store to compensate for her leaving.

What would be unjust?

We don't have enough work for the employees we have.
We therefore have too many employees.
Smart move would be to have less employees.

No, she's saying they hired someone else instead of her.

Beagle

Jun 19th, 2009, 11:29 PM

HR Professional can correct if I"m off base here, but "Termination" or "Terminate" is just a term that encompasses many different types of job loss, whether that be a layoff, firing, redundancy, etc.

In other words:

Layoff = Termination
Firing = Termination
Position eliminated = Termination

It's just HR lingo.

The important thing is to ask your friend to make sure the reason code in her Record of Employment (ROE) is correctly stated as a layoff rather than a termination for cause. If it's not set to layoff your friend will have a difficult time receiving EI, and from what you describe this is certainly a layoff. The ROE should reflect that. If not, your friend will have to either confront the company or set the record straight with Service Canada.

The word "termination" and layoff mean the same in HR-speak. By the sounds of the letter, your friend was not termination for cause and thus would be eligible for EI if they have the hours.

Absolutely... the ROE determines eligibility for benefits.
The letter could have been better worded, but management has a right to 'let go' employees. However, 'fired for cause' (e.g. stealing) disentitles the terminated to benefits. Check the ROE to make sure it jibes with the 'lay-off' terminology.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/employers/roe_guide.shtml

help_questions

Jun 20th, 2009, 06:36 AM

No, she's saying they hired someone else instead of her.

I don't see it that way, since the company brought in another employee from another location to replace her.

Therefore, no one was specifically hired to replace her. The replacement was already on the company payroll, and stationed at another location.

Either way, it is legit.

jjfz3000

Jun 20th, 2009, 01:53 PM

A friend who is working at a retail camera store received a letter from the employer and the wording is below.

"With the ongoing impact of the softening economy we are continuing to experience fewer and reduced activities in our store unfortunately this requires a difficult decision be made thus for the reason discussed with you today this letter confirms the TERMINATION of your employment from this company today."

She was part-time but can they actually terminate for that reason, laid-off i can understand but TERMINATE? Basically fire someone without just cause?Also, someone is being brought in from another store to compensate for her leaving.

Just curious, since I'm not an expert on this. What's the difference between being "laid-off" and being "fired/terminated". I thought the former is just an euphemism for the latter. Also, aren't the effects the same though? You still lost the job.

Are there any differences in getting EI or something?

Churo1

Jun 20th, 2009, 02:27 PM

Just curious, since I'm not an expert on this. What's the difference between being "laid-off" and being "fired/terminated". I thought the former is just an euphemism for the latter. Also, aren't the effects the same though? You still lost the job.

Are there any differences in getting EI or something?

GREETINGS. Being fired is your employment being terminated due to unsatisfactory performance on your behalf. Being laid off is when the company doesn't have enough money to keep you or enough work for you, even though you may be a good employee....

Being fired for misconduct disqualifies you from EI. Being fired for under-performance does not. You're welcome children.

MoreMiles

Jun 20th, 2009, 04:11 PM

GREETINGS. Being fired is your employment being terminated due to unsatisfactory performance on your behalf. Being laid off is when the company doesn't have enough money to keep you or enough work for you, even though you may be a good employee....

Being fired for misconduct disqualifies you from EI. Being fired for under-performance does not. You're welcome children.

"Fired" is not an official term. You will not see that word in any official human resource document. The proper term is "terminated".

"Lay-off" is an interruption of employment due to lack of work load. An employer can lay off employees with the option to call them back. If there is no call back, it becomes a termination.

The proper language to use, from an employer point of view, is "terminate". No other word should be used, in order to avoid misunderstanding. If the word "layoff" is used, it implies that there is a chance to call back and increases liability.

MoreMiles

Jun 20th, 2009, 04:18 PM

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/guide/guide_15.html

People should be familiar with the ESA before getting upset at their boss. ESA explains what defines a layoff and termination.

For example, the OP got upset for the word "termination" for no reason. He even wanted to sue?! ESA uses the word in defining an end to employment.... :rolleyes:

Firebot

Jun 20th, 2009, 04:27 PM

She got terminated, as in laid off. If she has hours to back it up she may be entitled to EI, otherwise she is not.

Unjust termination? LOL.

Churo1

Jun 20th, 2009, 06:20 PM

"Fired" is not an official term. You will not see that word in any official human resource document. The proper term is "terminated".

"Lay-off" is an interruption of employment due to lack of work load. An employer can lay off employees with the option to call them back. If there is no call back, it becomes a termination.

The proper language to use, from an employer point of view, is "terminate". No other word should be used, in order to avoid misunderstanding. If the word "layoff" is used, it implies that there is a chance to call back and increases liability.

A number of expressions are commonly used to describe situations when employment is terminated. These include "let go," "discharged," "dismissed," "fired" and "permanently laid off."

From your little government website.

Why correct my post? We all know the difference between being terminated because it was your fault (fired) and a layoff due to issues such as company downsizing.

MoreMiles

Jun 20th, 2009, 09:00 PM

A number of expressions are commonly used to describe situations when employment is terminated. These include "let go," "discharged," "dismissed," "fired" and "permanently laid off."

From your little government website.

Why correct my post? We all know the difference between being terminated because it was your fault (fired) and a layoff due to issues such as company downsizing.

I corrected your post because wrong information was given. Perhaps you were never an employer, seeing the other side of operation?

If you are an employer, your agreement with the worker should include clauses such as:

Termination without cause, the following rules apply...
Termination with cause, the following actions are considered cause...
Layoff due to lack of workload...
Leave of absence, it is / isn't paid...

You don't write a contract with your employee with the words "You will be fired if..." "We will have to let you go"... let go? Come on, go where? Everyone knows that it's a nice term for terminating you. It's like saying "It's not you, it's something else.." yeah sure.

Find an employment lawyer to help you write a contract to hire new workers, those are the official words that will be included. A dismissal letter is not a joke so all the words are properly chosen so they will not be used against the employer in a law suit. Most big company will get a lawyer to prepare "dismissal / termination service" to properly write the letter and handle any sequelae.

Churo1

Jun 20th, 2009, 09:04 PM

I corrected your post because wrong information was given. Perhaps you were never an employer, seeing the other side of operation?

If you are an employer, your agreement with the worker should include clauses such as:

Termination without cause, the following rules apply...
Termination with cause, the following actions are considered cause...
Layoff due to lack of workload...
Leave of absence, it is / isn't paid...

You don't write a contract with your employee with the words "You will be fired if..." "We will have to let you go"... let go? Come on, go where? Everyone knows that it's a nice term for terminating you. It's like saying "It's not you, it's something else.." yeah sure.

Find an employment lawyer to help you write a contract to hire new workers, those are the official words that will be included. A dismissal letter is not a joke so all the words are properly chosen so they will not be used against the employer in a law suit. Most big company will get a lawyer to prepare "dismissal / termination service" to properly write the letter and handle any sequelae.

*Sigh* Children these days....

Churo1

Jun 20th, 2009, 09:14 PM

I didn't feel like giving you a real response, but I happen to be in the spirit of giving today. Consider yourself lucky.

The dude asked what's the difference between being fired and being laid off. These are usually colloquially used terms that any adult knows about, and I gave him the answer. Obviously if being fired isn't a legally correct term, he was referring to the colloquial usage, as there is no other usage. No one said anything about your legal jargon.

MoreMiles

Jun 21st, 2009, 03:04 AM

*Sigh* Children these days....

Yeah, such a mature language. Look at your words, "children" then "dude", the guy didn't thank you and you said "you are welcome".

What a troll!

MoreMiles

Jun 21st, 2009, 03:06 AM

A friend who is working at a retail camera store received a letter from the employer and the wording is below.

"With the ongoing impact of the softening economy we are continuing to experience fewer and reduced activities in our store unfortunately this requires a difficult decision be made thus for the reason discussed with you today this letter confirms the TERMINATION of your employment from this company today."

She was part-time but can they actually terminate for that reason, laid-off i can understand but TERMINATE? Basically fire someone without just cause?Also, someone is being brought in from another store to compensate for her leaving.

The whole issue of this thread is about that word "terminate"... the OP got worried all about that word. No it's not a legal jargon. It's a proper language in such an official setting.

oasis100

Jun 21st, 2009, 11:13 AM

A friend who is working at a retail camera store received a letter from the employer and the wording is below.

"With the ongoing impact of the softening economy we are continuing to experience fewer and reduced activities in our store unfortunately this requires a difficult decision be made thus for the reason discussed with you today this letter confirms the TERMINATION of your employment from this company today."

She was part-time but can they actually terminate for that reason, laid-off i can understand but TERMINATE? Basically fire someone without just cause?Also, someone is being brought in from another store to compensate for her leaving.

of course a employer can terminate, there is nothing wrong with the wording.