Promises at hiring make for expensive firing
By 2018, Glen was 53 years old. He was a chemical engineer and had worked his way up in the pulp industry in B.C. He had been working for the same company for 27 years and was an operations specialist in a pulp mill.
Glen’s plan was to retire from that company, although he was not thrilled with his situation. He was afraid the company was not investing properly in its business and thought he was overworked and underpaid. Having said that, like many people trapped by inertia, Glen was not actively looking for new employment. Sometimes the devil you know is the preferred option.
Glen had no up-to-date resume and had not been looking through job ads. Out of the blue he was contacted by a recruiter for a competing B.C. pulp mill. The mill was recruiting for an area manager, which would have been a step up for Glen. Some emails were exchanged and Glen eventually went to the mill to take a tour.
The mill manager assured Glen that the mill had a good fibre supply, better benefits, overtime and that the company hired for the “long term.” Another member of management asked Glen how long he could commit to the company and Glen said five years, more if he was enjoying the job. When the job offer came it was not for an area manager but an operations specialist, which was the position Glen already held. The pension and benefits were slightly better but the salary was the same. Glen was not prepared to leave 27 years of secure employment for a marginal improvement, and he declined the offer. Another offer soon followed for more salary and Glen accepted.
There was no probationary period or termination clause in the contract. Glen moved to the new mill, bought property and started to build a house.
Two and a half years after he started, the company had cutbacks and he was one of about 15 people who lost their jobs. When Glen sued, the judge found the employer had induced Glen to leave secure employment with promises of a secure job for the long term. “Inducement” means the employer takes on responsibility, when it comes to paying out severance, for some of the years of service Glen left behind when he accepted their offer.
Even though Glen was only there for 2.5 years, he was awarded 12 months’ notice. Clearly, the judge did not give Glen credit for the whole 27 years he left behind, but a 2.5-year employee would hardly ever be awarded 12 months’ notice.
The case law with respect to inducement is a bit of a mess. There are all kinds of factors that can be considered by a judge to come to a conclusion that inducement has taken place.
If Glen’s new employer had included a probationary period and a termination clause in its contract, the inducement argument would have been quashed before it was even begun.
Employers need to be careful about what they say when trying to attract new employees. Those words can come back to haunt.
This article was originally published by The Hamilton Spectator.
