Employee Says Retirement Date Wasn’t Final — Judge Disagrees
Dylan was 63 years old and had been working for an agricultural feed supplier for 40 years. In the part of his end-of-the-year performance review that he was to complete, he wrote: “We should also probably discuss my retirement date … I don’t want to overstay my welcome.”
A few weeks later, he met with his boss, but it was unclear exactly what was discussed with respect to the retirement. In the general manager’s report to other managers the next month, he wrote that “Dylan is considering setting a retirement date in the next 12 months.” That was pretty ambiguous since it could either mean that Dylan would retire in the next 12 months or would decide within the next 12 months when he was going to retire.
A number of months later, the general manager reached out to ask Dylan if he had made a decision about his retirement, but said there was no pressure as he would rather Dylan stayed in any case. Discussions ensued and the general manager understood from Dylan that he would be retiring as of Jan. 31, 2023. Dylan gave him permission to share that date with other managers at an upcoming retreat. Dylan was present when the announcement was made and said nothing.
In his next year-end written performance review, his boss talked about honouring his 40 years of service, his assistance with transitioning and a hope that he would see Dylan “finish strong.” Part of that performance review set Dylan’s bonus — Dylan did challenge the bonus amount, but didn’t say anything about the rest of it. In his report a few months later, the general manager noted that he was working on succession planning for Dylan.
Eventually, the general manager asked for a meeting to review Dylan’s salary and to discuss “retirement planning — date and what you would like this to look like.” At the meeting, Dylan asked to change his retirement date from Jan. 31 to the end of April 2023 to use up accrued vacation time. The general manager proposed March 31 and Dylan agreed.
After that meeting, the general manager circulated a report indicating that Dylan was retiring on March 31, which Dylan saw.
In late October 2022, Dylan wrote to the general manager and indicated that after speaking to his financial planner, he had come to the decision that he needed to delay his retirement by a year or more. The financial planner had told Dylan he was not as wealthy as he thought he was. The boss, of course, wanted Dylan to stick to the March 31 retirement date. He had spent the better part of a year in succession planning and training other people. The parties were getting stuck in their positions. Eventually Dylan offered to retire on March 31 if the company would give him six months of salary as a payout. It refused. Eventually, the general manager wrote to Dylan indicating that “his employment will conclude on March 31, 2023, consistent with your retirement date.”
When Dylan was forced out, he brought a claim for a wrongful dismissal. He argued no firm retirement date had been set. He did not object to the announcements about his retirement dates because he was under the understanding that it was still flexible. He had, after all, never put anything definitive in writing.
Dylan’s position was that he always thought Jan. 31 and then the March 31 dates were target dates and not set in stone. The judge did not buy it. The fact that he had attended a management retreat where everyone was told a retirement date and said nothing said a lot. It was clear that Dylan had been the first to raise the retirement issue and the employer was never pressuring him to go in the first place.
There were lots of communications in which the upcoming retirement was referred to and Dylan never once objected or said anything about it being a soft target date. It was clear to the judge that after discussing his financial position with his financial planner, Dylan had a change of heart. But it was too late. Dylan’s case was dismissed.
The employer never would have had to have gone through this lawsuit if it had simply required Dylan to put his resignation/retirement in writing. There would have been no ambiguity at all.
This article was originally published by The Hamilton Spectator.
