Though not a manager, employee's job duties were significant and he had 20 years of service
The 12 months’ notice offered to an employee fired as part of a British Columbia company’s cutbacks is not enough because of his age, 20 years of service and poor job prospects, according to the British Columbia Supreme Court.
Jim Jamieson, 53, was a millyard systems manager for Finning International, a supplier of heavy construction and forestry equipment, in Vancouver. His duties included configuring equipment to meet safety standards and customer requirements, conducting on-site assessments of equipment, liaising with suppliers and making presentations to customers. He was involved in planning strategies for the forestry equipment market and had regular input on product development and how to meet customer demands.
On Nov. 26, 2008, after 20 years with the company, Jamieson’s employment was terminated when Finning decided to cut costs as the recession took hold. Finning offered Jamieson 12 months’ salary in lieu of notice plus unused vacation time, the equivalent of 15 per cent of his pay to compensate for an immediate termination of benefits, use of the company’s EAP for two months and access to a three-month outplacement program.
Jamieson worked with the outplacement and relocation service provided by Finning, which included interview skills training, resumé writing clinics and networking discussions. However, he wasn’t able to find a job after completing the three-month program and filed a wrongful dismissal suit, claiming his age, type of employment and scarcity of similar employment, particularly during an economic down period, warranted a greater notice period and suggested 22 months was more appropriate.
Finning disputed Jamieson’s claim, arguing his position was not supervisory and his marketing duties assisted the sales department rather than set their strategy. The company depicted his role as “middle management” and not high enough to warrant an exceptionally large notice period.
The court agreed for the most part with Jamieson’s arguments, finding an employee with his years of service and relatively advanced age warranted additional notice. It also found his role at Finning was significant and his prospects of finding a similar job were slim.
