Saliken v. Alpine Aerotech Limited Partnership, 2016 BCSC 832 (CanLII)
This case illustrates the importance of investigating before terminating and allowing a terminated employee opportunity to consider the terms of a release.
The plaintiff was a 54 year old helicopter mechanic, earning $68,000 per year, employed by the Alpine for about 15 months. He had no history of discipline or performance issues. Following an incident during an audit by Erickson Helicopters, a very important customer of Alpine, he was summarily dismissed on April 9, 2015, without notice. The plaintiff’s conduct was rude and unprofessional. In the termination meeting, which lasted 15 minutes, the employer had him sign a release.
The employer failed to investigate the incident and did not speak to the plaintiff. Rather the employer relied on the plaintiff’s supervisors. The employer also did not consider its employee handbook. The Court found that “defendant’s decision to fire the plaintiff was an over-reaction to a one-off event.” In the Court’s view, discipline would have been a more proportional response. In short, the employer did not have just cause for the dismissal.
The Court also found that the plaintiff, characterized as somewhat unsophisticated, was not bound by the release:
[171] ….The atmosphere during the termination meeting was tense and awkward. The plaintiff was in shock he was being terminated. Even Mr. Davis was shocked. To hold the plaintiff to the termination documents in the circumstances would be unconscionable. Neither Mr. Pink nor Mr. Davis explained any of the termination documents to the plaintiff. They implied that the defendant would require the plaintiff to repay the Training Bond because he had somehow breached it. It was a grossly unfair and improvident transaction. The plaintiff received no legal or other suitable advice. Ultimately, the circumstances and resulting stress of the termination resulted in an imbalance in bargaining power and the defendant knowingly took advantage of the plaintiff’s vulnerability to its advantage: Morrison. The offer contained in the termination documents was presented in a way that was directed to getting the plaintiff to accept, and in a manner set to take advantage of the plaintiff’s vulnerability: Rubin v. Home Depot Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 3053 (CanLII).
The plaintiff sought damages of 6 months’ salary in lieu of notice. The Court agreed: “Although the plaintiff was employed with the defendant for a relatively short period of time, given his age and seeming lack of available similar employment, I am satisfied that he should have been given 6 months’ notice of his termination….”