Sentences with phrase «employers terminate»

Here are some reasons why employers terminate employees.

3: Can employers terminate an employee because they contribute too much to the overall rate.

Admittedly, not all private employers terminate their less effective employees.

When employers terminate an employee as punishment for wrongdoing, it's important that they proceed in a way that pays attention to fundamental principles of justice.

The DOL describes surrender charges as «fees an insurance company may charge when an employer terminates a contract (in other words, withdraws the plan's investment) before the term of the contract expires or if you withdraw an amount from the contract.

A redundancy is when your employer terminates your employment because they either decide that your job is no longer needed, or they become insolvent or bankrupt.

If CONSULTANT's employment with EMPLOYER terminates for any reason, the CONSULTANT shall not, for a period of one year from the date of termination, have any business dealings whatsoever, either directly or indirectly or through corporate entities or associates with any customer or client of EMPLOYER or its subsidiaries or any person or firm which has contacted or been contacted by EMPLOYER as a potential customer or client of EMPLOYER;

The applicant, Jolando Miraka, alleged that his employer terminated his employment because of his family status - and disability - related absences from work.

More recently, though, the Board has stated that there must be more than procedural content; that there is an active obligation on employers to enable workers to make complaints and it can not be correct that there is no worker remedy if an employer terminates a worker for doing so.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision: No Prima Facie Discrimination The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, with the majority confirming that the employer terminated Stewart for breaching the Policy's requirement to disclose his drug use, and that discrimination based on his disability was not a factor in the termination of his employment.

Following an investigation during which Stewart stated he believed he might be addicted to cocaine, the employer terminated his employment for breaching the Policy and for compromising the safety of the workplace.

The employer terminated the plaintiff after 4 months (still during the probation period) because «after careful consideration», the employer concluded that the plaintiff was «unsuitable for regular employment.»

The employee rejected the offer and the employer terminated his employment for cause.

However, the employer terminated the employment relationship before the employee had a chance to produce medical evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that he would be able to return to work within a reasonable time.

The case is important because it is a common concern of those who become disabled that they will cease to have access to LTD coverage if their employer terminates their employment before LTD benefits commence.

In the original court decision in Wilson, the Federal Court had ruled that the unjust dismissal remedy should not be available where the employer terminated without cause and offered contractual severance.

The Tribunal concluded the employer terminated for breach of its Policy, and the Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable.

The employee was absent for over 20 % of her scheduled shifts in a one - year period, and the employer terminated her employment in accordance with its attendance policy.

Did an employer terminate employment because of addiction to cocaine (raising a prima facie case of discrimination), or for breach of the Policy prohibiting drug use unrelated to his addiction because he had the capacity to comply with those terms (not raising a prima facie case of discrimination).

No, if an employer terminates you for pursing a workers» compensation claim, the Kentucky Workers» Compensation Act provides a remedy as you would be entitled to bring a suit against your employer for wrongful termination / retaliatory discharge.

One employer terminated its employee, while the other released a statement that they would be «addressing» the situation.

In Bowes, Chief Justice Winkler, writing for a five - member panel of the Court of Appeal, held that if an employment agreement specifies the amount payable to an employee if the employer terminates the employment contract, whether fixed or readily calculable, the parties have contracted out of the common law presumption of providing reasonable notice of dismissal.

the employer terminates an employee for cause alleging serious misconduct (i.e. criminal or quasi-criminal conduct) without conducting a reasonably fair and unbiased investigation; and

In that case, the employer terminated Mr. Wilson's employment on a without cause basis by providing him with six months» severance pay in exchange for a full and final release upon the end of his employment.

The employer terminated LaMont and Michael in January and April 2013, respectively.

Amount of reasonable notice that the employee is entitled to in the event that the employer terminates the employee.

The Court of Appeal held that when the employer terminated a fixed term employment contract, without cause, and there was no enforceable provision for early termination without cause, the employee was entitled to the compensation that he would have received to the end of the employment contract.

Similarly, if an employer terminates a fixed term employment contract prior to the end of the term the employer will be obligated to pay the employee to the end of the term, and that obligation will not be subject to mitigation unless the contract explicitly states that the employee is required to mitigate his or her damages.5

Justice Chiasson, writing for the Court, held that even if the employee repudiated the contract by leaving the employer when he received the termination letter, he did not thereby forfeit his right to sue for damages because his right to sue for damages had already accrued when his employer terminated his employment without providing reasonable notice.

In Nemeth v Hatch, an employer terminated an employee's employment after just over 19 years and provided him with eight weeks» notice of termination, 19.42 weeks» salary as severance pay, and continued benefits (including pension) during the eight - week notice period.

In the usual case, the only inquiry that the Board will make into the underlying allegations of harassment is whether the employer terminated, or otherwise penalized, the worker for having filed the harassment complaint.

As a result, the employer terminated her employment for cause.

This decision extended the ruling in a 2012 decision, Bowes v Goss Power Corp. which had held that where an indefinite hire contract contained a termination notice clause allowing for termination on «6 months» notice or pay in lieu» and the employer terminated without working notice, there was no duty to mitigate damages or deduction for mitigation earnings.

Moreover, it may mean a heftier price tag for employers terminating lower - level employees, which is yet another reason why employers should attempt to limit liability with properly drafted employment agreements.

This is because there is no reason to distinguish between a constructive dismissal and a wrongful dismissal when evaluating the duty to mitigate since both types of dismissals are the result of the employer terminating the employment contract without cause.

The employer terminated the grievor based on the findings of the investigation report, which concluded that he had engaged in workplace harassment and had caused a poisoned workplace (by «spreading cancer» and «rumours» about the complainant).

In his action, he alleged that the employer terminated him not because of his mistakes but because of his age (64) and his disability (a heart condition).

Where an employer terminates the employment contract without serving advance notice meeting the minimum period requirement above, the employee shall pay the employee wages for the advance notice period.

In those rare circumstances when an employer terminates the employee prior to the employee starting his or her employment, the employee will be entitled to reasonable notice of dismissal or the notice period set out in the termination clause in employee's employment contract.

There is a common misconception that when an employer terminates the employment of an employee without cause the dismissal itself is a breach of contract.

Under the ESA, if an employer terminates 50 or more employees in the same 4 - week period, the employer must give at least 8 weeks» notice of termination.

He was given a temporary reassignment which the employer terminated three years later.

In order to do that, they typically include a provision in the employee's contract that says that in the event the employer terminates the employee's employment without just cause they will pay the employee in accordance with the provisions of the applicable employment standards legislation.

If the employer terminates an employee for «cause,» the employee is not entitled to notice, pay in lieu of notice or statutory severance pay (if applicable).

While the case, Global NAPS, Inc. v. Awiszus, et al was a legal malpractice case, the plaintiff in the underlying case alleged that her employer terminated her in violation of the MMLA while she was on maternity leave.

He made a claim under the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act that the employer terminated his employment because of his addiction to cocaine.

The next day, the employer terminated Perera for insubordination and refusing to work where assigned.

His employer terminated his employment.

«An employer must examine options to accommodate an employee's disability up to the point of undue hardship... If the employer terminates the employee without exploring and assessing the accommodation options, then the employee may have the basis for a human rights complaint.»

The main issue is whether the employer terminated Mr. Stewart because of his addiction (raising aprima facie case of discrimination), or whether the employer terminated him for breach of the Policy prohibiting drug use unrelated to his addiction because he had the capacity to comply with those terms (not raising a prima facie case of discrimination).