Is this letter grounds for unjust termination?

[gostinger]

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.

[Jon Lai]

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

[Sanhedralite]

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]

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

[cgtlky]

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]

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.

[nalababe]

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]

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]

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/.../guide_15.html

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

[robster77]

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]

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]

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]

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/e...oe_guide.shtml

[help_questions]

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]

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?