Employer offered short-term contract with lower-level work after terminating senior manager
A British Columbia employee’s refusal to accept another position after his was terminated does not reduce his notice entitlement, the British Columbia Provincial Court has ruled.
Joseph Rachert, 46, was a senior manager of promotions and brand public relations for Teligence, a telephone social networking company based in Vancouver. He was initially hired by Teligence in November 2000 and held various positions with the company before being named a senior manager. His duties involved developing and implementing promotions and marketing campaigns for a specific sector of the business, as well as setting out budgets. He had one person report to him who worked with various contractors in different cities where the network operated.
On Sept. 17, 2009, Teligence terminated Rachert’s employment as well as that of his subordinate. Rachert was given 27 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. At the same time, the company offered him a 3-month contract for fewer hours that would have an automatic renewal. The new position would involve Rachert working on a promotion he’d already planned as well as performing several duties his former subordinate did. The contract had a 10-day termination clause.
Rachert refused the offer because he felt the work was demeaning and a downgrade. He said he wanted his former subordinate brought back and a guarantee of six weeks of work and increased severance pay to four weeks for every year of employment. Teligence refused the counter-offer.
Rachert took a job-search training program and began looking for work in October. He also filed a claim for damages in lieu of notice, arguing the severance he had been given wasn’t sufficient. Teligence argued he failed to mitigate his losses by accepting its contract offer.
The court found Rachert had limited management responsibilities but his type of employment was not easily transferable. Given his age, expertise and nine years of service, the court found it was difficult for him to find similar employment and set the period of reasonable notice at nine months.
The court also found Rachert made reasonable efforts to find a job. He didn’t start looking until two months after his termination because he took a training course which was aimed at improving his chances. He also was not required to take the position Teligence offered him because the term and hours were uncertain.
“While (Rachert) did show some interest in returning to the employer nonetheless, that was in the context of an improved severance package. I find it was not objectively unreasonable for (Rachert) to reject an offer with indeterminate hours and an indeterminate length of employment which could have been as short as 10 days,” said the court.
