Employers should be cautious in termination interview
Mike had been an Engineer for 20 years and was gainfully employed when he received an email from a head-hunter through his LinkedIn account. Mike had not been looking for work and had no up to date resume. The head-hunter, as they do, had been trolling LinkedIn profiles to see if he could find somebody for his client to hire as an Engineering Manager in a mining company. The recruiter told Mike that his client was looking for somebody to fill a big project role that might lead to future opportunities. Mike went through 4 interviews and then received an offer letter which mentioned that his first assignment should last 2 years. The offer letter also mentioned, however, that either party could terminate the relationship with one month’s notice.
About 3 months after Mike started the job, he was brought into a room and told by 2 members of management that they were terminating him. When he asked why, they told him it didn’t matter. He then became insistent that he be given reasons. No one had ever mentioned that anything of his doing or not doing was endangering his employment and he could not understand what was happening.
What the employer should have said at that moment was that a decision had been made and was final and that it was not prepared to go into the reasons for the decision at this time. Instead of taking this cautious and respectful approach they told Mike that he didn’t have any respect for senior management, that he was not a very good Engineer and that he was not a good Manager either. To add a cherry on top, they told him that he was an embarrassment to the company.
Mike was extremely upset by the surprising and mean things said to him at his termination interview and was distressed for some time mentally as a result of the experience. The company tried to pay Mike off with the one month referred to in his employment contract but Mike sued for more. It was found at trial that the employment contract was void and did not limit Mike to one month’s pay in lieu of notice because the terms were contrary to the minimum Employment Standards Legislation and therefore void. The judge decided that in normal circumstances, given Mike’s management position, he would have been awarded 4 months’ notice even though he was only there around 3. The judge also found, however, that Mike had been induced to leave secure employment by promises and representations made by the employer and added 2 months to Mike’s notice period for a total of 6.
The court found that the employer’s behaviour at Mike’s termination interview was unduly harsh, especially since he had been given no warnings of these alleged deficiencies. Mike was awarded $12,500.00 for aggravated damages and the mental stress caused by the employer. If an employer is terminating somebody, there is either just cause or no just cause. There is no in between. If an employer is not taking the position that the employee has done something so awful that they can be terminated without any payment or notice, they should review the situation with an Employment Lawyer and set out clearly and fairly the concerns in a termination letter.
However, if the employer is not taking the position that the employee has somehow disentitled himself/herself to a severance package, the reasons for termination should rarely be discussed at the termination interview. It is not required by the law and causes more distress for no reason. All an employer will get for suddenly delivering a line of criticisms is an angry employee who wants to sue. They may also, like Mike’s employer, end up paying aggravated damages if they become overly harsh in giving the termination reasons.
