Redundant employee gets 18 months’ pay after not getting hired for similar job posted before termination date
A Newfoundland and Labrador employer wrongfully dismissed an employee whose job it eliminated in restructuring moves but failed to hire when a similar position became available before the employee’s termination date, an adjudicator has ruled.
John Mathieu, 61, was hired by a St. John’s, N.L.-based subsidiary of Inmarsat, a provider of global mobile satellite communication services, to be an account specialist on a temporary basis as a maternity leave replacement on Dec. 29, 2009. The assignment was to last until March 2011.
On March 22, 2011, the employee on maternity leave decided not to return to work. Stratos offered Mathieu the account specialist position on a permanent basis and Mathieu accepted.
Mathieu continued in the position without any performance issues or discipline until August 2013, when Inmarsat decided to sell its retail energy operations to another company, RigNet. This led to a corporate restructuring that resulted in Mathieu’s job being declared redundant, along with another account specialist. Inmarsat determined which employees were redundant based on a number of factors including overall contributions and skills.
Insmarsat provided Mathieu with a notice of termination indicating his last day of work would be Jan. 31, 2014. The company also offered him a retention bonus of $4,162 and severance package if he remained in the company’s employment with a satisfactory performance up to the last day of work. If he left before then or was “successfully placed in a comparable permanent position with Inmarsat,” the severance package wouldn’t apply.
Mathieu accepted the terms of the termination letter and release and Inmarsat provided him with a reference outlining his skills and job performance.
Similar job posted before termination date
On Sept. 26, 2013, another account specialist decided to leave his job and Inmarsat posted the position both inside and outside the company. The job requirements were similar to Mathieu’s job, so he applied for it in early October. However, he wasn’t successful and an external applicant was hired. Inmarsat’s reasoning was that while Mathieu could do the job, he would have required more training and others would have to fill in to cover his transition period. The external candidate had more than 20 years of relevant experience.
Mathieu filed a complaint alleging unjust dismissal seeking compensation over and above his severance package. He did not want his old job back.
Inmarsat objected to the complaint, arguing that Mathieu was still employed when he filed the complaint in November 2013 and there was no dismissal yet. It also said Mathieu had been allowed to seek legal advice before he accepted the agreement. However, the adjudicator found there was no reason Mathieu couldn’t file the complaint once the termination was official, and his acceptance of a severance package didn’t preclude seeking further relief under the Canada Labour Code.
The adjudicator found that it was the intention of Inmarsat to discontinue Mathieu’s functions, though when the other account specialist position became open Mathieu’s functions had not yet been discontinued and wouldn’t be until Jan. 31, 2014. Inmarsat had released an information document indicating it was open to re-employing employees who were declared redundant, if possible, and employees who wanted to pursue a position within the company could contact the appropriate department.
However, the adjudicator found Inmarsat did not apply its stated procedures when Mathieu applied for the open account specialist position. The company acknowledged Mathieu could do the job and it was a “comparable permanent position.” Though the external candidate had more overall experience, the reasons for not hiring Mathieu were not reasonable, said the adjudicator.
“The employer failed to give appropriate weight to the fact that their own employee, an account specialist, had just been declared redundant due to corporate restructuring and was looking for work in a similar position,” said the adjudicator. “The appointment of an external applicant over the internal applicant who had just been declared redundant lacked justification or rationale. There was no valid economic reason established for the employer’s decision.”
The adjudicator determined the hiring of the external candidate was “an arbitrary decision” and Inmarsat “no longer wanted to have (Mathieu) in their employ.” The adjudicator found Inmarsat did not use good faith in dealing with Mathieu and the result was unjust dismissal.
Inmarsat was ordered to pay Mathieu the equivalent of 18 months’ salary in addition to the severance package, plus Mathieu’s legal fees.
For more information see:
