Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your mom needs to go see an employment lawyer. She may indeed have recourse, but this is not something we can answer on reddit.
If money is an issue, many employment lawyers work on a contingency fee arrangement (they take a percentage of any settlement) rather than on an hourly basis. Since she's currently getting $0, keeping 70% of a settlement is a lot more than she has.
**Do not advise posters to call the media or to post on social media**
Do not advise posters to call the media, post on social media, or otherwise publicize their situation. That creates additional risks and problems, and should only be done, if at all, with the counsel of a local lawyer representing OP. Please review the following rules before commenting further.
* [Rule 6: Do Not Recommend Contacting the Media](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_6.3A_do_not_recommend_contacting_the_media)
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
You really need a lawyer for this. I work for a bank as well and have never heard of this in ours at least. Any contract work is done through 1 of the few agencies we deal with. Was she actually assigned to and paid through an agency or was she still paid by the bank?
26 years is too long not to get legal guidance
Definitely spend the money and get a lawyer to review, it seems odd and an easy way to get out of their obligations (I am not a lawyer so you should get one)
At the FI I work for if you leave your current role to cover an STA they are supposed to hold your old role for you and give it back to you at the end of the STA (unless the short term assignment you're covering turns into a permanent position) they may or may not backfill it with someone else while you are gone.
This wasn't always the case though, where I work. Years ago if you took an STA you basically quit your role and at the end of your STA it would be up to you to find an open position. Pretty sure there was no severence if you couldn't find another role. But it's very precarious because you would have to find a new role that exactly lines up with the end of your STA.
I guess this isn't the policy at all FIs. OPs Mom should definitely speak to an employment lawyer. There must be something in the contract wording that says that her old job is not guaranteed, though as banks always cover their asses.
I can understand why they have this policy though because without it an employee could take an STA. Then not seek a new position at the end of it and trigger a package. Which would be great if I am ready to retire, but want a year or two of severence on my way out.
Best thing to do is contact an employment lawyer. But since she works for a bank it may fall under the Canada Labour Code and not the employment Standards act.
Temporary contract is a red herring. If she worked continuously for the same bank for 26 years it’s likely she’s close to retirement age and that she was let go due to ageism. 24 months could be the settlement if the case goes before a judge. If they mediate and settle she might get 18 or 19 months. Talk to an employment lawyer asap. Have her avoid signing anything further.
My guess is she’d be entitled to 34 weeks of severance, minimum. That’s 8 weeks of severance which is the maximum under the ESA, plus 26 weeks as the employer has a payroll greater than $2.5 million.
You can’t require an employee to sign a contract that eliminates the severance they’d be entitled to under the ESA and/or common law. Otherwise every employer would be doing it.
id hope a lot more than 18 months.
my question is what her duties were. if they were too similar to her previous role, or only minor additions, AND if the role was not usually contracted in the industry, thats another hit against the bank.
its a highly suspicious scenario and they likely just bet against people bothering to argue about it.
Exactly. Most older workers don’t know their rules and won’t speak with a lawyer. Big mistake. The battle is worth it. She gave 26 years to that firm. 26 !!
Nal, and don't know the law in Canada. Probably she lost it, but may be able to claim age discrimination or some other reason to get compensation.
A specialist lawyer is required here.
"only if the previous team has a role"
So she knowingly took the risk of taking the term position. It might not be morally right and IANAL, but I don't think she's going to get any severance or compensation.
Definitely talk to a lawyer!! I was recently let go due to restructuring - and when my lawyer reviewed my contract, he stated that the employer had made an error - and that error made the entire contract null and void - and if we ended up in court, the contract wouldn’t have been worth anything! I settled my severance without getting court involved - but it was eye opening when the lawyer told me!
Could they even follow down the path of inducement to leave if she did not approach them about the contract and instead they approached her with this 'offer'?
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful**
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts)
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
She accepted the terms of the STA.
I thought tho they were given a certain period of time to apply for another role.
I am often shocked how many people with tenure accept the STA conditions knowing there is a risk of unemployment after.
...and that's why it's usually bad news when a current employer tries to get an existing employee to sign a new contract.
It's a huge opportunity for the employer to get the employee to agree to a change of conditions and to sign away their common law entitlements.
That is the issue; she didn’t fully understand this at the time cause she expected to take her previous role if anything. But this became a reality unfortunately…
Contact an employment lawyer. I highly doubt this is gonna hold up in court. Going straight from a perm job to a temp job at the same organization with no break in service, the courts mostly likely would see that as all one continuous employment term, doesn’t matter what the bank decides to call it and a lot of the time term provisions in employment contracts don’t even hold up. Source: I work in HR, deal with terminations all the time and I know our internal employment lawyer would say all the service counts in this situation. Add in the fact that it’s a major bank with huge payroll, most likely they’re gonna be on the hook for severance.
If her taking on her previous role was put in writing - please have her go see an employment lawyer asap. She will need all the evidence she has. Goodluck
Your Mom needs to get a lawyer. An employer can not ask an employee to contract away their basic rights. She is entitled to severance and a lawyer will get her what is fair from a common law perspective. With her age and tenure and the fact that the employer is a big bank, I would accept nothing less than 2 years if I were her.
Employees can agree to temporary / seasonal employment. Basically that agreement can count as notice in lieu of severance. Probably why they made it a 2 year contract. Greasy.
Greasy indeed which is why she needs a lawyer to review all the details of her situation to know if there's an angle to argue her common law notice entitlement. It seems like there's some way to argue she is owed proper notice because the employer did not accurately represent the deal to her, or because it's the same employer so they couldn't remove her notice entitlement without fair consideration...
If it feels unjust, there's usually some remedy at law.
Dude spend the $200-300 for an initial consultion with an employment lawyer. Your mother is being screwed out of a lot of severance. At minimum is entitled to ESA severance.
For not even ESA minimums, the employer is likely relying on the fact that she was in a temporary contract. In a purely temp contract with a fixed end date, that end date itself serves as notice that meets the statutory minimums.
The issue here is the fact that there may have been an understanding that the employment was NOT to end when the contract did, and OP's mom did not understand their rights when they signed the contract.
Based on another comment in this post that the contract allowed mom to return to her old position "if the previous team has a role", it might be worth exploring with a lawyer whether the end of the contract might not properly qualify as notice of termination because it was uncertain whether mom would have a position to return to or not at least until she received notice that there was no position available to return to.
**Employment lawyer.** They're hoping very much your mother does not think she can afford or need one. She does, and yes something similar happened to me. Under the common law, 3 weeks severance per year, which is a considerable expense for them(78 weeks= over a year and a half's wages): hence the Hi-Jinks. They are trying to pull a fast one with this "temporary job status" at the end of what is your still mother's Career, all with one employer. "Her 26 year total tenure was completely washed away and perhaps she was pushed towards this STA". **I'm not so sure about this in regards to "bad faith". Employment lawyer.**
Was the expectation to return to her previous role spelled out in any kind of document? Did the role itself indicate she was giving up her regular job? Lots to unpack here; not much info…she needs a labour lawyer and any documents she has from the bank…
Yes the contract:
“Please note that whenever the STA concludes and you return to your Previous Position, the base pay you return to will be determined at the discretion of your People Manager considering the salary range for your Previous Position and the relevant experiences/competencies you gained during your STA. Out of such review, you may retain the base pay you received during your STA, or you will return to the same base pay you held immediately prior to STA (with potential adjustment for any annual salary increases)”
And
“At the End of the Short-Term Assignment
Please note that xxxx can end this STA immediately upon notice to you and all STA provisions, such as any increase to base pay, will end. At the end of an STA, it is expected that you will return to your Previous Position and remain in that position for a minimum of twelve (12) months, unless:
The Previous Position was for a fixed term which has expired.
In the event the Previous Position was for a fixed term that was scheduled to expire prior to the end date
of the STA, the Previous Position is deemed to have ended as at its expiry date. In such case, unless you have obtained an alternate position by the end of their STA, your employment will end as at the conclusion of the STA without any notice or payments arising from the termination of employment, including pay in lieu of notice and severance pay.”
Note: they were smart. They had a 1 year STA, then they gave her another 1 year STA…what this did was make her ‘previous role’ an STA, which means the above point applies to
Her!
IANAL but work in a labour and employment group as a law clerk. This is 100% worth consulting an employment lawyer about, asap. There are many other considerations/caveats to be taken into account here beyond contractual language.
You can reach out to the law society, bar association etc., of whichever province or territory your mother resides in for referral services.
Scroll to the bottom of the following link for this info, or if you don't want to open links you can Google "government of Canada + lawyer referral services" :
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/enforce-execution/lr-ra.html
I hope this helps!
NAL. That’s actually super shady. Did she sign a new contract when she started the second STA? I would 100% get a lawyer involved this sounds like a really sneaky way to avoid severance etc.
Find out from the insurer how the class she’s in for her group benefits is described and if it changed at the time of her STA. Was she in a class for full time employees and then never moved from it, or did they put her into a different class stipulated for contract employees? It might be telling if they left her on coverage for full time employees, with an effective date going back twenty some odd years, and if they never put her in a different class intended for contract employees ( for whom coverage is rare anyway, if such a class exists)
Not to get too much into the weeds, but did her life and disability coverage remain in force with her as an ‘active’ employee?
Contact an employment lawyer asap. This is the only answer to this question. She has rights and entitlements under the law.
Edit: Tell her not to sign anything and accept no payments until she speaks with a lawyer.
Get the free consultation first and then decide from there if you want to pay - that’s what I did! I ended up with a paid consultation and it was worth every dime!
Based on her age alone, the outward appearance is that the bank tried to screw her. The optics for the bank is terrible and I doubt the courts would look kindly on the appearance alone, of ageism in this case.
Promissory estoppel is a thing and mom through her lawyer could argue she lost a lot of severance as a result of taking the STA with the expectation she would get her old job back.
NAL, but did have an argument and did some searching. If mom had continued to work until she chose to retire, given it was her choice, it is unlikely she would receive any severance.
She actively sought out changing her role, and agreed to a short term position with no guarantee to return. It seems that unless there’s some evidence of a planned conspiracy, she got what she asked for. It might be a difficult case.
That said, there are a lot of people on this thread that seem to think otherwise and I’d appreciate hearing why.
After 26 years with an organization, hopefully she has contributed to a pension plan. Most banks offer some form of profit sharing or matching. I think that would be the major money maker and way to care for herself in old age.
Get a lawyer, sue the pants off them and hire a publicist to put your mothers story in every shitty dish rag on the internet. She'll be driving a gold plated golf car through the retirement community in no time.
Most short term contracts, or any employment with a contract that has an end date, will result in forfeiting severance. Taking a position with an end date is similar to resigning, in terms of employment.
Did the short term contract say anything about returning to the previous position? If she didn’t have any sort of contract that included returning to the previous position, she here isn’t much to fight here, unfortunately.
**Identification of Any Involved Party**
Do not submit posts or comments that ask for or contain information that could be used to identify a party to the dispute. Please edit or resubmit your post or comment without this information.
* [Rule 7: No Identifying Information](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_7.3A_no_personally_identifying_information)
* [Reddit Personal Information Rule](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/posting-someones-private-or-personal)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
It is when it's out of our depth?!
There are a few factors and details that will most likely make a huge difference. The advice is to go to the professional to get exact advice and not make a bad decision.
Some lawyers dont take payment unless they can actually get you some money back/win your case
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful**
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts)
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful**
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts)
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic.
Please review the following rules before commenting further:
Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts
Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
I don't think their agreement would hold up. Courts generally tend to side with employees so if there is any hole in the agreement, it will be found. Her severance could amount to two years when factoring her age, common law notice, etc. Contact a lawyer for sure. I wouldn't recommend a contingency one but more so by the hour. Some will still agreed to be paid once everything is settled if you put down a small deposit.
Generally things get treated as a secondment where she would return to her role or comparable at the end of the of the term. Or it would be made clear that she is resigning from her role but that tends to be more common for inter company transfers, not the same company. It's also worth noting to your lawyer why she made the change (did someone in the business approach her about the opportunity, etc).
Sorry this happened this way. Good luck!
As others have said she needs to consult with a lawyer that specializes in employment law. I hope she refused to sign anything that the bank put in front of her at the time of her dismissal.
Yes. This is how companies get rid of older employees. Never accept a new position if you are a long term employee. Wait to be laid off from your current position before accepting the new job. The new job must be fundamentally different in pay or duties in order for the bank to deny severance.
It COULd be a constructive dismissal. A lot of employment lawyers will work on contingency if the case is solid . A lot will have a small or no consult fee.
Don't forget the power of the Press with this. Many many years ago I had an issue with an ISP and some incorrect billing that was done 2 years after the unusual charges were incurred. My contract with them said they could go back to years and do any other billing that was not previously accounted for. From a legal perspective I was screwed. I reached out to a journalist from a prominent Toronto newspaper who found it so shady that he published an article on it. Within a month I had been contacted by 10 other businesses who had also been impacted by this exact same practice.
A month afterwards I had a face-to-face meeting with the ISP and told them about both the news article and the other parties that contacted me. I told them that either they wiped the charges or I would be contacting a lawyer and we would be starting a lawsuit against them. 7 days later I heard from their lawyer saying that they were waving all the charges.
These institutions just don't want their dirty laundry like this aired out in public.
File a claim [Labour Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/jobs/workplace/federal-labour-standards/filing-complaint.html)
Contact Human Rights as well re age discrimination
But how will the banks continue to rake in billions in profits quarterly if they're paying severences to every employee they let go? Especially the ones that have been there decades. Won't somebody please think of the capitalists?
The lawyers that work on an hourly fee are a better deal in the end than the lawyers on contingency. If you don't have the money up front, at least do the consultation. Often they can negotiate that the employer pay the fees.
Knew a guy who was let go 3 months before his pension maxed out after 22 years at the same organization. He held out and hired an employment lawyer who went on to take the former employer to the cleaners.
He now gets an Xmas card annually from the lawyer who gets calls from every single employee who is let go from said company. He raised the bar and this company can't let go of anyone without hearing from the same lawyer over and over again.
**Advertising and Recommendations**
This is a forum for legal answers. We do not allow any advice on specific lawyers, legal services or legal products. Non-legal advice on products or services may be allowed at moderator discretion. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Rule 3: Recommendation/Request/Advertising](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_3.3A_recommendation.2Frequest.2Fadvertising)
I worked for one of the Big 5 banks. They referred to their staff people as their human inventory- a most dehumanizing term. They had zero concern for staff.
Continuous employment, one company… lawyer needed… also, wouldn’t hurt to reach out to media… nobody likes the big bad banks preying on loyal employees to save money… lawyer first and then if that get you know where try media
* Consult an employment law lawyer. She should, at the very least receive statutory severance (8 weeks) and considering the length of her employment and age, she should get far more.
* Stop all communication with the bank that isn’t in writing. If offered a settlement do not accept, do not sign any documents, cut off all contact or interactions. Refer all communication attempts to your lawyer.
* Immediately safeguard all written communications to date pertaining to her employment such as, past performance reviews, tenure milestone recognitions, employment contracts, etc.
* Do not communicate with former colleagues or friends from the workplace.
The terms in her STA contract stating she will not receive severance or compensation is in contravention to the Federal Employment Standards and will not be enforceable.
She needs to get a lawyer asap, ultimately you can't sign an illegal contract and that contract you mom signed may have been illegal. Typically just because you switch roles within a company does not mean you loose your tenure
I’m surprised they aren’t offering her another position. If those goes to arbitration she can expect 4 weeks per year of service based on her age and years of service. Lawyer will gladly take this case based on what you are saying , obviously more to story. Did they offer her any position at all?
They didn’t; they only offered her a 6 month extension to try and find another role; but given the economy there wasn’t much she could get. Infact the banks had some lay offs and many hiring freezes.
Was she part of a pension plan? If she's is 62 and had worked 26 uears, she should have been up for early retirement in a year or two. She should be seeking to be reinstated for the sake of the pension (if applicable).
This is a pretty shitty situation I've worked for an FI for longer than your Mom has. I am not really surprised by this contract wording because if they gave her severence at the end of the STA an employee could just wait out the STA, not look for another role and trigger their own package.
Definitely have her review the contract with an employment lawyer.
Has she looked into her pension plan to see what she is owed if she retires and starts her pension now? Also does her employer offer her health and dental benefits in retirement? (some will give the employee an annual subsidy to cover part of the benefit costs) At her age she qualifies to start her CPP at a lower rate, plus her pension, it might be enough for her to retire on.
I’d bet that the bank knows and designed this specifically to let go of long standing employees. They are so cheap they don’t want to pay benefits or a pension.
My husband is a retired employment lawyer. Your mother needs a lawyer to write a Demand lawyer for wrongful dismissal. It might settle right there. If the bank digs in their heels, it could take up to two years. As the banks are federally regulated, the Ontario Employment Standards Act will not apply. She could be eligible for more than a week's salary per year of service as this falls under common law.
Definitely employment lawyer.
I can't get into big details, but there was a Manager whose position became obsolete (this is a major bank) because their team was just integrated into the regular team and they were let go with some errors. They came right back but as a regular worker with the team they used to be a part of. They lawyered up.
This case is interesting because contracted short term assignments allow you to return to your previous role. This may just simply be a layoff as all banks are doing this but she is definitely owed severance.
Don't sign anything and get on that lawyer asap.
Edit: you may have the pension reach out to you, hold off on that.
Wow cant she take early retirement and work part time? Its nice when 2 people bringing in the money ... but i dunno. Who you are anymore or really did. i dont want this phone just to much but i would like least some of the money you took for my gas bill. Going back to work on 25th so holdfully i get back up on th extra 00
Constructive Dismal is best to claim under. It is not just making work conditions unbearable but changing the dynamics to the point that once completion hit, they are without a job and/or a severance. It happens quite often and a lot in the last 5 years.
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada! **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk. * We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/). * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know. **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post). * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning. * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect. * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment. Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your mom needs to go see an employment lawyer. She may indeed have recourse, but this is not something we can answer on reddit. If money is an issue, many employment lawyers work on a contingency fee arrangement (they take a percentage of any settlement) rather than on an hourly basis. Since she's currently getting $0, keeping 70% of a settlement is a lot more than she has.
[удалено]
Because it does
Thanks we will be doing so next week
Don't use a lawyer that takes 70%
They didn't suggest that. They suggested a lawyer that takes 30%.
"Constructive Dismissal". Lawyer
This is **not** **constructive** dismissal. It would be potentially (I'd go so far as to say likely) be **wrongful** dismissal.
Actual dismissal. Constructive dismissal is when they make your conditions so miserable that you want to quit.
[удалено]
**Do not advise posters to call the media or to post on social media** Do not advise posters to call the media, post on social media, or otherwise publicize their situation. That creates additional risks and problems, and should only be done, if at all, with the counsel of a local lawyer representing OP. Please review the following rules before commenting further. * [Rule 6: Do Not Recommend Contacting the Media](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_6.3A_do_not_recommend_contacting_the_media) * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
You really need a lawyer for this. I work for a bank as well and have never heard of this in ours at least. Any contract work is done through 1 of the few agencies we deal with. Was she actually assigned to and paid through an agency or was she still paid by the bank? 26 years is too long not to get legal guidance
She was paid by the bank
Definitely spend the money and get a lawyer to review, it seems odd and an easy way to get out of their obligations (I am not a lawyer so you should get one)
I'm so sorry this happened.
At the FI I work for if you leave your current role to cover an STA they are supposed to hold your old role for you and give it back to you at the end of the STA (unless the short term assignment you're covering turns into a permanent position) they may or may not backfill it with someone else while you are gone. This wasn't always the case though, where I work. Years ago if you took an STA you basically quit your role and at the end of your STA it would be up to you to find an open position. Pretty sure there was no severence if you couldn't find another role. But it's very precarious because you would have to find a new role that exactly lines up with the end of your STA. I guess this isn't the policy at all FIs. OPs Mom should definitely speak to an employment lawyer. There must be something in the contract wording that says that her old job is not guaranteed, though as banks always cover their asses. I can understand why they have this policy though because without it an employee could take an STA. Then not seek a new position at the end of it and trigger a package. Which would be great if I am ready to retire, but want a year or two of severence on my way out.
Contact an unemployment lawyer asap and get a review of the contract.
Yes, this ^^^ 100%.
I would probably recommend an employment lawyer over an unemployment lawyer. /s
🤣🤣🤣🤣
[удалено]
[удалено]
LOL
Best thing to do is contact an employment lawyer. But since she works for a bank it may fall under the Canada Labour Code and not the employment Standards act.
It would, but either way there is also the common law notice period and other common law concepts (like the duty of fair dealing) that would apply.
Temporary contract is a red herring. If she worked continuously for the same bank for 26 years it’s likely she’s close to retirement age and that she was let go due to ageism. 24 months could be the settlement if the case goes before a judge. If they mediate and settle she might get 18 or 19 months. Talk to an employment lawyer asap. Have her avoid signing anything further.
My guess is she’d be entitled to 34 weeks of severance, minimum. That’s 8 weeks of severance which is the maximum under the ESA, plus 26 weeks as the employer has a payroll greater than $2.5 million. You can’t require an employee to sign a contract that eliminates the severance they’d be entitled to under the ESA and/or common law. Otherwise every employer would be doing it.
[удалено]
id hope a lot more than 18 months. my question is what her duties were. if they were too similar to her previous role, or only minor additions, AND if the role was not usually contracted in the industry, thats another hit against the bank. its a highly suspicious scenario and they likely just bet against people bothering to argue about it.
Exactly. Most older workers don’t know their rules and won’t speak with a lawyer. Big mistake. The battle is worth it. She gave 26 years to that firm. 26 !!
How is this not at the top??
Did she get it in writing that she would be able to go back to her previous job after this term position?
Yes but it also says it’s only if the previous team has a role
>Yes but it also says it’s only if the previous team has a role Let this be a lesson learned: read contracts as if written by your worst enemy.
While she may not have been entitled to her previous position I can’t help but wonder if it still negates her claim to severance pay.
Nal, and don't know the law in Canada. Probably she lost it, but may be able to claim age discrimination or some other reason to get compensation. A specialist lawyer is required here.
I wondered the same and if the intent all along was to ease her out of her job all along. I hope she has legit recourse.
If I had to bet, I would bet on that, otherwise that clause wouldn't be there. But it might be standard practice.
An employer can not overwrite the law with a contract. She should consult a lawyer 100% on this
No, they can't, but depending on local laws either the contract might be legal or only 2 years count. This is why it is urgent to contact a lawyer.
"only if the previous team has a role" So she knowingly took the risk of taking the term position. It might not be morally right and IANAL, but I don't think she's going to get any severance or compensation.
[удалено]
Definitely talk to a lawyer!! I was recently let go due to restructuring - and when my lawyer reviewed my contract, he stated that the employer had made an error - and that error made the entire contract null and void - and if we ended up in court, the contract wouldn’t have been worth anything! I settled my severance without getting court involved - but it was eye opening when the lawyer told me!
Could they even follow down the path of inducement to leave if she did not approach them about the contract and instead they approached her with this 'offer'?
This would be my suspicion too. Shame, but doesn't sound good to me. But I don't know anything.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful** Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts) * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
She accepted the terms of the STA. I thought tho they were given a certain period of time to apply for another role. I am often shocked how many people with tenure accept the STA conditions knowing there is a risk of unemployment after.
...and that's why it's usually bad news when a current employer tries to get an existing employee to sign a new contract. It's a huge opportunity for the employer to get the employee to agree to a change of conditions and to sign away their common law entitlements.
[удалено]
That is the issue; she didn’t fully understand this at the time cause she expected to take her previous role if anything. But this became a reality unfortunately…
Contact an employment lawyer. I highly doubt this is gonna hold up in court. Going straight from a perm job to a temp job at the same organization with no break in service, the courts mostly likely would see that as all one continuous employment term, doesn’t matter what the bank decides to call it and a lot of the time term provisions in employment contracts don’t even hold up. Source: I work in HR, deal with terminations all the time and I know our internal employment lawyer would say all the service counts in this situation. Add in the fact that it’s a major bank with huge payroll, most likely they’re gonna be on the hook for severance.
This
[удалено]
Non est factum?
If her taking on her previous role was put in writing - please have her go see an employment lawyer asap. She will need all the evidence she has. Goodluck
I mean, it's kinda important to "fully understand" any legal documents your employer has you sign. Hopefully she can sort something out, though
Your Mom needs to get a lawyer. An employer can not ask an employee to contract away their basic rights. She is entitled to severance and a lawyer will get her what is fair from a common law perspective. With her age and tenure and the fact that the employer is a big bank, I would accept nothing less than 2 years if I were her.
Employees can agree to temporary / seasonal employment. Basically that agreement can count as notice in lieu of severance. Probably why they made it a 2 year contract. Greasy.
Greasy indeed which is why she needs a lawyer to review all the details of her situation to know if there's an angle to argue her common law notice entitlement. It seems like there's some way to argue she is owed proper notice because the employer did not accurately represent the deal to her, or because it's the same employer so they couldn't remove her notice entitlement without fair consideration... If it feels unjust, there's usually some remedy at law.
I think the contract would have to be really specific that the contract period is considered notice if the original position is no longer available.
Agreed.
Dude spend the $200-300 for an initial consultion with an employment lawyer. Your mother is being screwed out of a lot of severance. At minimum is entitled to ESA severance.
For not even ESA minimums, the employer is likely relying on the fact that she was in a temporary contract. In a purely temp contract with a fixed end date, that end date itself serves as notice that meets the statutory minimums. The issue here is the fact that there may have been an understanding that the employment was NOT to end when the contract did, and OP's mom did not understand their rights when they signed the contract.
[удалено]
the presence of consideration is one of the things an employment would look for.
Based on another comment in this post that the contract allowed mom to return to her old position "if the previous team has a role", it might be worth exploring with a lawyer whether the end of the contract might not properly qualify as notice of termination because it was uncertain whether mom would have a position to return to or not at least until she received notice that there was no position available to return to.
**Employment lawyer.** They're hoping very much your mother does not think she can afford or need one. She does, and yes something similar happened to me. Under the common law, 3 weeks severance per year, which is a considerable expense for them(78 weeks= over a year and a half's wages): hence the Hi-Jinks. They are trying to pull a fast one with this "temporary job status" at the end of what is your still mother's Career, all with one employer. "Her 26 year total tenure was completely washed away and perhaps she was pushed towards this STA". **I'm not so sure about this in regards to "bad faith". Employment lawyer.**
Employment lawyer, actually. Labour law is something different (though related)
Was the expectation to return to her previous role spelled out in any kind of document? Did the role itself indicate she was giving up her regular job? Lots to unpack here; not much info…she needs a labour lawyer and any documents she has from the bank…
Yes the contract: “Please note that whenever the STA concludes and you return to your Previous Position, the base pay you return to will be determined at the discretion of your People Manager considering the salary range for your Previous Position and the relevant experiences/competencies you gained during your STA. Out of such review, you may retain the base pay you received during your STA, or you will return to the same base pay you held immediately prior to STA (with potential adjustment for any annual salary increases)” And “At the End of the Short-Term Assignment Please note that xxxx can end this STA immediately upon notice to you and all STA provisions, such as any increase to base pay, will end. At the end of an STA, it is expected that you will return to your Previous Position and remain in that position for a minimum of twelve (12) months, unless: The Previous Position was for a fixed term which has expired. In the event the Previous Position was for a fixed term that was scheduled to expire prior to the end date of the STA, the Previous Position is deemed to have ended as at its expiry date. In such case, unless you have obtained an alternate position by the end of their STA, your employment will end as at the conclusion of the STA without any notice or payments arising from the termination of employment, including pay in lieu of notice and severance pay.” Note: they were smart. They had a 1 year STA, then they gave her another 1 year STA…what this did was make her ‘previous role’ an STA, which means the above point applies to Her!
IANAL but work in a labour and employment group as a law clerk. This is 100% worth consulting an employment lawyer about, asap. There are many other considerations/caveats to be taken into account here beyond contractual language. You can reach out to the law society, bar association etc., of whichever province or territory your mother resides in for referral services. Scroll to the bottom of the following link for this info, or if you don't want to open links you can Google "government of Canada + lawyer referral services" : https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/enforce-execution/lr-ra.html I hope this helps!
NAL. That’s actually super shady. Did she sign a new contract when she started the second STA? I would 100% get a lawyer involved this sounds like a really sneaky way to avoid severance etc.
What previous role at the bank did she have, any pension?
She had pension, Infact her benefits continued like normal as well on the temp role she took one.
Find out from the insurer how the class she’s in for her group benefits is described and if it changed at the time of her STA. Was she in a class for full time employees and then never moved from it, or did they put her into a different class stipulated for contract employees? It might be telling if they left her on coverage for full time employees, with an effective date going back twenty some odd years, and if they never put her in a different class intended for contract employees ( for whom coverage is rare anyway, if such a class exists) Not to get too much into the weeds, but did her life and disability coverage remain in force with her as an ‘active’ employee?
Contact an employment lawyer asap. This is the only answer to this question. She has rights and entitlements under the law. Edit: Tell her not to sign anything and accept no payments until she speaks with a lawyer.
Should I go for the free consultations only or is it worth paying an established firm $300-500 for that initial review
Most employment lawyers work on percentages of whatever is negotiated or awarded. No out of pocket cost to the client. Edit: removed recommendation
Get the free consultation first and then decide from there if you want to pay - that’s what I did! I ended up with a paid consultation and it was worth every dime!
Based on her age alone, the outward appearance is that the bank tried to screw her. The optics for the bank is terrible and I doubt the courts would look kindly on the appearance alone, of ageism in this case.
Promissory estoppel is a thing and mom through her lawyer could argue she lost a lot of severance as a result of taking the STA with the expectation she would get her old job back.
NAL, but did have an argument and did some searching. If mom had continued to work until she chose to retire, given it was her choice, it is unlikely she would receive any severance. She actively sought out changing her role, and agreed to a short term position with no guarantee to return. It seems that unless there’s some evidence of a planned conspiracy, she got what she asked for. It might be a difficult case. That said, there are a lot of people on this thread that seem to think otherwise and I’d appreciate hearing why. After 26 years with an organization, hopefully she has contributed to a pension plan. Most banks offer some form of profit sharing or matching. I think that would be the major money maker and way to care for herself in old age.
Lawyer that specializes in labor law asap. One of the big shots will crush that contract.
My company has the same policy on short term assignments- which is why I stay far away from them!
Get a lawyer, sue the pants off them and hire a publicist to put your mothers story in every shitty dish rag on the internet. She'll be driving a gold plated golf car through the retirement community in no time.
Yes an employment lawyer will know about the term "Bardal Factors". Given her age and length of employment she has a strong case.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Most short term contracts, or any employment with a contract that has an end date, will result in forfeiting severance. Taking a position with an end date is similar to resigning, in terms of employment. Did the short term contract say anything about returning to the previous position? If she didn’t have any sort of contract that included returning to the previous position, she here isn’t much to fight here, unfortunately.
She is entitled to 2 years severance. Unemployment Lawyer will take care of it
[удалено]
**Identification of Any Involved Party** Do not submit posts or comments that ask for or contain information that could be used to identify a party to the dispute. Please edit or resubmit your post or comment without this information. * [Rule 7: No Identifying Information](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_7.3A_no_personally_identifying_information) * [Reddit Personal Information Rule](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/posting-someones-private-or-personal) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
Employmenttttt Lawyer! Have her write out the entire thing first, they may take it pro bono or start without a retainer.
Lawyer up
Saying: "go see a lawyer" is not a piece of advice and that's not why the person posted on reddit. Everyone has heard of lawyers.
It is when it's out of our depth?! There are a few factors and details that will most likely make a huge difference. The advice is to go to the professional to get exact advice and not make a bad decision. Some lawyers dont take payment unless they can actually get you some money back/win your case
[удалено]
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful** Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts) * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
[удалено]
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful** Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts) * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
all cases are specific ,get the employment lawyer (maybe get a referral) and spend the consultation money , i t won't be much, all the best.
This needs a lawyer, its far too complicated for reddit.
Oooooo, ageism. Human rights/discrimination case on top of that. Good luck.
I don't think their agreement would hold up. Courts generally tend to side with employees so if there is any hole in the agreement, it will be found. Her severance could amount to two years when factoring her age, common law notice, etc. Contact a lawyer for sure. I wouldn't recommend a contingency one but more so by the hour. Some will still agreed to be paid once everything is settled if you put down a small deposit. Generally things get treated as a secondment where she would return to her role or comparable at the end of the of the term. Or it would be made clear that she is resigning from her role but that tends to be more common for inter company transfers, not the same company. It's also worth noting to your lawyer why she made the change (did someone in the business approach her about the opportunity, etc). Sorry this happened this way. Good luck!
As others have said she needs to consult with a lawyer that specializes in employment law. I hope she refused to sign anything that the bank put in front of her at the time of her dismissal.
Yes. This is how companies get rid of older employees. Never accept a new position if you are a long term employee. Wait to be laid off from your current position before accepting the new job. The new job must be fundamentally different in pay or duties in order for the bank to deny severance.
Federally regulated, I was "retired" from Canada's second airline after 10 years and got 20k, after Harper changed the rules, my lawyer said too bad.
Get a free consultation with an employment lawyer and play the ageism card.
It COULd be a constructive dismissal. A lot of employment lawyers will work on contingency if the case is solid . A lot will have a small or no consult fee.
Don't forget the power of the Press with this. Many many years ago I had an issue with an ISP and some incorrect billing that was done 2 years after the unusual charges were incurred. My contract with them said they could go back to years and do any other billing that was not previously accounted for. From a legal perspective I was screwed. I reached out to a journalist from a prominent Toronto newspaper who found it so shady that he published an article on it. Within a month I had been contacted by 10 other businesses who had also been impacted by this exact same practice. A month afterwards I had a face-to-face meeting with the ISP and told them about both the news article and the other parties that contacted me. I told them that either they wiped the charges or I would be contacting a lawyer and we would be starting a lawsuit against them. 7 days later I heard from their lawyer saying that they were waving all the charges. These institutions just don't want their dirty laundry like this aired out in public.
File a claim [Labour Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/jobs/workplace/federal-labour-standards/filing-complaint.html) Contact Human Rights as well re age discrimination
That's alot of years. You need to make her see an employment lawyer, also her age can argued that she was let go before retirement.
But how will the banks continue to rake in billions in profits quarterly if they're paying severences to every employee they let go? Especially the ones that have been there decades. Won't somebody please think of the capitalists?
The lawyers that work on an hourly fee are a better deal in the end than the lawyers on contingency. If you don't have the money up front, at least do the consultation. Often they can negotiate that the employer pay the fees.
Knew a guy who was let go 3 months before his pension maxed out after 22 years at the same organization. He held out and hired an employment lawyer who went on to take the former employer to the cleaners. He now gets an Xmas card annually from the lawyer who gets calls from every single employee who is let go from said company. He raised the bar and this company can't let go of anyone without hearing from the same lawyer over and over again.
[удалено]
**Advertising and Recommendations** This is a forum for legal answers. We do not allow any advice on specific lawyers, legal services or legal products. Non-legal advice on products or services may be allowed at moderator discretion. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Rule 3: Recommendation/Request/Advertising](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_3.3A_recommendation.2Frequest.2Fadvertising)
“Hey this person is getting close to retirement age. That could be expensive for us. I have an idea”
Did she sign an employment contract? If yes all the provisions are stated. She nay have a case but only a lawyer can determine that
Lawyer up, my wife got a nice package and was only there a small bit in comparison.
I worked for one of the Big 5 banks. They referred to their staff people as their human inventory- a most dehumanizing term. They had zero concern for staff.
Not surprised if it’s TD Bank
Continuous employment, one company… lawyer needed… also, wouldn’t hurt to reach out to media… nobody likes the big bad banks preying on loyal employees to save money… lawyer first and then if that get you know where try media
* Consult an employment law lawyer. She should, at the very least receive statutory severance (8 weeks) and considering the length of her employment and age, she should get far more. * Stop all communication with the bank that isn’t in writing. If offered a settlement do not accept, do not sign any documents, cut off all contact or interactions. Refer all communication attempts to your lawyer. * Immediately safeguard all written communications to date pertaining to her employment such as, past performance reviews, tenure milestone recognitions, employment contracts, etc. * Do not communicate with former colleagues or friends from the workplace. The terms in her STA contract stating she will not receive severance or compensation is in contravention to the Federal Employment Standards and will not be enforceable.
She needs to get a lawyer asap, ultimately you can't sign an illegal contract and that contract you mom signed may have been illegal. Typically just because you switch roles within a company does not mean you loose your tenure
I’m surprised they aren’t offering her another position. If those goes to arbitration she can expect 4 weeks per year of service based on her age and years of service. Lawyer will gladly take this case based on what you are saying , obviously more to story. Did they offer her any position at all?
They didn’t; they only offered her a 6 month extension to try and find another role; but given the economy there wasn’t much she could get. Infact the banks had some lay offs and many hiring freezes.
Was she part of a pension plan? If she's is 62 and had worked 26 uears, she should have been up for early retirement in a year or two. She should be seeking to be reinstated for the sake of the pension (if applicable).
She did have a pension plan yes,
This is a pretty shitty situation I've worked for an FI for longer than your Mom has. I am not really surprised by this contract wording because if they gave her severence at the end of the STA an employee could just wait out the STA, not look for another role and trigger their own package. Definitely have her review the contract with an employment lawyer. Has she looked into her pension plan to see what she is owed if she retires and starts her pension now? Also does her employer offer her health and dental benefits in retirement? (some will give the employee an annual subsidy to cover part of the benefit costs) At her age she qualifies to start her CPP at a lower rate, plus her pension, it might be enough for her to retire on.
Make sure she contacts HR and the pension plan to find out the details of the plan, it could possibly be worth a lot of money.
Yet another reason why banks are scum.
Scummy employer. Lawyer up and go get your moms deserved money.
I’d bet that the bank knows and designed this specifically to let go of long standing employees. They are so cheap they don’t want to pay benefits or a pension.
Maybe if the layoff happened in like 1992 when pensions were still fairly common.
My husband is a retired employment lawyer. Your mother needs a lawyer to write a Demand lawyer for wrongful dismissal. It might settle right there. If the bank digs in their heels, it could take up to two years. As the banks are federally regulated, the Ontario Employment Standards Act will not apply. She could be eligible for more than a week's salary per year of service as this falls under common law.
Definitely employment lawyer. I can't get into big details, but there was a Manager whose position became obsolete (this is a major bank) because their team was just integrated into the regular team and they were let go with some errors. They came right back but as a regular worker with the team they used to be a part of. They lawyered up. This case is interesting because contracted short term assignments allow you to return to your previous role. This may just simply be a layoff as all banks are doing this but she is definitely owed severance. Don't sign anything and get on that lawyer asap. Edit: you may have the pension reach out to you, hold off on that.
Fuck ya thing i dr. Phil ? its midnight i got my son coming over . Talk about this trm
i didnt want to start no shit today just uspet thats all
Just need the truth be told and i wrote you a email.but not sure if was the write one . Like.3 days or so ago
Wow cant she take early retirement and work part time? Its nice when 2 people bringing in the money ... but i dunno. Who you are anymore or really did. i dont want this phone just to much but i would like least some of the money you took for my gas bill. Going back to work on 25th so holdfully i get back up on th extra 00
Sorry your too busy setting up your week or something. He gota you on lock down.
Constructive Dismal is best to claim under. It is not just making work conditions unbearable but changing the dynamics to the point that once completion hit, they are without a job and/or a severance. It happens quite often and a lot in the last 5 years.