Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

I Gave 30 Years of My Life to That Job – Shouldn’t My Termination Package Reflect My Years of Dedication and Loyalty?! What About My Retirement Package?!

I Gave 30 Years of My Life to That Job – Shouldn’t My Termination Package Reflect My Years of Dedication and Loyalty?! What About My Retirement Package?!

By:

Mann Lawyers

Posted April 15, 2021

The law of severance is dynamic and at times confusing. One common misperception is the purpose of severance itself. Many people believe that a severance package is meant to be a reward or acknowledgement for years of dedicated service or a recognition for a job well done. Some very senior employees consider severance as part of their “retirement entitlement”. While employers are certainly within their rights to acknowledge excellence through a severance package, that is not the purpose of severance, nor is it what the law requires. The real purpose of severance is to tide the employee over while she looks for work. To understand how this works, a return to first principles is useful.

In employment law, an employer is entitled to terminate the employee’s employment at any time and for any lawful reason by providing notice of the termination. The amount of notice is determined with regard to the type of employment, the age of the employee and the availability of similar positions in the market. Notice can be provided by working notice, pay in lieu of notice or a combination of the two.

For example, under working notice, the employer essentially tells the employee, “Employee, your last day of work will be six months from today”. The purpose of that six months’ notice is to allow the employee to continue working while she looks for suitable replacement work. During this time, the employee will still show up to work each day, but it is expected that she may be excused to attend job interviews, career fairs, or meet with outplacement services.

Conversely, under pay in lieu of notice, the employer essentially tells the same employee, “Employee, your last day of work is today. In lieu of six months’ notice, we will pay you six months’ pay”. The purpose of that six months’ pay in lieu is to allow the employee to pay her expenses and maintain her lifestyle while she looks for suitable replacement work – all while not attending the workplace.

At common law, working notice is the default, although its use is becoming rarer given security concerns with information technology. The purpose in providing pay in lieu of notice is really more about preserving morale and avoiding the awkwardness and guilt associated with terminating an employee from their employment. For trustworthy and upbeat employees, working notice remains a good option.

What happens when an employer provides no notice at all or not enough notice? The failure to provide adequate notice gives rise to a right to sue for “wrongful dismissal” – which is essentially a lawsuit for money which is payable to the Employee to tide the employee while she looks for comparable replacement employment. Employers are permitted to terminate employees without any notice where the employee gives the employer cause, such as being disobedient (insubordination) or engaging in willful misconduct. “Cause” cases are rare. In most circumstances, wrongful dismissal lawsuits arise from the employer’s failure to provide adequate notice.

Severance entitlements create a lot of liability for employers of all sizes. Employers can limit that liability by limiting severance entitlements in a carefully drafted employment agreement. Templates pulled from the internet will almost certainly not suffice. For employees, many employment contracts may purport to limit entitlements, but are actually (sometimes hopelessly) unenforceable in the Courts.

If you have questions, please contact Nigel McKechnie, a member of our Employment Law team.  Nigel can be reached at 613-369-0382 or at nigel.mckechnie@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights, Commercial Litigation

By: 

Posted May 23, 2023

Both in my commercial and employment litigation practice, I encounter Ontario business owners faced with serious charges laid against them under the Provincial Offences Act[...]
Blog |
Family Law

By: 

Posted May 18, 2023

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 SCC 13, provides guidance on domestic contracts and the enforceability of an informal[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law

By: 

Posted May 16, 2023

When many people think of contaminated sites, they think of the usual suspects such as industrial properties and gas stations.  They may not think of[...]
Blog |
Business Law

By: 

Posted May 9, 2023

Often business owners reach a point where they are considering the sale of their business either through the sale of shares or the sale of[...]
Blog |
Family Law

By: 

Posted May 2, 2023

Overview of Tort Claims in Family Matters Tort claims can be made in family law matters, so as to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Posted April 25, 2023

In a case that recently was decided from the Court of Appeal of Ontario called Celestini v Shoplogix Inc., 2023 ONCA 131, the Court had[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.