Individual's salary increased from $42,000 to $80,000 over 10 years with company
A British Columbia employer successfully enforced a nine-year-old termination clause even after an employee's salary nearly doubled and he received two promotions, in a decision that offers good news for employers navigating career progression and contract enforceability.
In LaPlume v. AAA Internet Publishing Inc., Justice Jasmin Ahmad of the BC Supreme Court ruled that "incremental and predictable" changes to employment don't invalidate original employment agreements—rejecting the employee's argument that his evolution from junior developer to operations manager had eroded the contract's foundation.
Kievs LaPlume was hired in December 2013 at $42,000 annually as a junior developer at the Kelowna tech company. By his July 2023 termination, he earned $80,000 as operations manager. He argued these changes rendered his employment contract, including its 16-week termination cap, unenforceable. The court disagreed.
Core responsibilities unchanged
LaPlume received five salary increases between 2013 and 2019 with no change in duties. In January 2021, he became manager of the games team with a $6,000 raise, overseeing "a small team of new hires and support representatives" while maintaining his original responsibilities testing games and writing configuration files. In 2022, he moved to operations manager at $80,000, helping new hires learn game configurations while continuing his developer work.
The court found LaPlume's core job duties never fundamentally changed. "Other than his responsibility for 'new hires', neither his core job duties, nor his status as a developer changed," Justice Ahmad wrote.
He continued reporting to the same person, worked the same hours, and performed the same technical tasks throughout his employment.
Justice Ahmad contrasted LaPlume's situation with cases where courts found contracts unenforceable, noting that in those decisions employees assumed "significantly greater responsibilities" or the job became "simply not the same job."
Contract clause makes the difference
A key factor was paragraph 3 of LaPlume's employment contract, which stated the company could "change your position, title, duties, responsibilities or reporting relationship as it deems appropriate from time to time, consistent with your qualifications, skills and experience, and such change will not constitute a breach of this [employment contract] or a constructive dismissal, as long as such changes do not materially increase work duties or hours of work."
The court found the changes consistent with LaPlume's expectation when he signed the employment contract. As he gained experience as a developer, overseeing less experienced employees "is not surprising; it is predictable,” Justice Ahmad concluded.
"The inclusion of para. 3 in the employment contract serves to reinforce the conclusion that the incremental and predictable changes to Mr. LaPlume's employment are insufficient to render the termination clause of the contract unenforceable.”
The company paid LaPlume $24,616, representing 16 weeks as specified in the contract, and avoided common law reasonable notice damages. His claim was dismissed with costs awarded to the employer.
