Adhesives salesman doesn’t stick, awarded nine-months’ notice

Kaiser v. Dural (2002), 17 C.C.E.L. (3d) 194 (N.S.C.A.)

Dural hired Kaiser because of his knowledge and contacts in the adhesives industry. Not satisfied with Kaiser’s performance as a salesman, Dural fired him after 11 months. But before Kaiser was informed of Dural’s decision, he became ill and had to undergo surgery.

While Kaiser was still off from work recovering, representatives from Dural met with him at a restaurant and told him his employment with the company was over. No letter of reference was given.

On appeal the trial court’s award of nine-months’ reasonable notice was upheld. The appeal court referred to two main factors which contributed to the award of nine-months notice for a period of employment which was only 11 months in total. First, Kaiser was induced to leave his previous job and, second, the circumstances surrounding Kaiser’s dismissal were sufficient to justify an increase as the employer completely failed to consider the impact the termination would have on Kaiser in his current circumstances.

The appeal court also held, in accordance with previous case law, that no deduction should be made for the disability benefits received by Kaiser from the award of damages for wrongful dismissal. The appeal court rejected the defendant’s argument that Kaiser had failed in his duty to mitigate since he could not obtain alternate employment due to his disability.

Latest stories