A. INTRODUCTION
Many employees are hired subject to the successful
completion of a probationary period. However, courts have ruled in several
decisions that the right to terminate a “probationary employee” without notice
or compensation is not absolute. Therefore, it is important that employers,
including charities and not-for-profits, are aware that the assessment of and,
if necessary, the termination of probationary employees is something that must
be handled diligently and with care. The recent decision of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, Cao v. SBLR LLP, 2012 O.J. No. 3328, has confirmed that an employee may be found to have been wrongfully dismissed
if the employer did not act in good faith during the probationary employee’s
employment and termination process. Although the Ontario Employment
Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”) does not provide for a notice period to be
given to employees who have been employed for less than three months, courts
are not prohibited from applying common law reasonable notice periods when appropriate.
This Charity Law Bulletin discusses this decision, and analyzes how it
may affect Ontario employers.
B. THE FACTS
In the spring of 2008, Suyi Cao was
employed as a Tax Accountant at an accounting firm when she responded to a job
recruitment advertisement for a Financial Analyst position. When Ms. Cao went to
interview for the position, she was informed by the recruiter that his close
friend was a partner at an accounting firm, SBLR LLP, and that if she was
interested they might have a tax position available for her there.
The job posting for that position stated
that SBLR LLP required the successful candidate to have a post-secondary
education, be working towards completing a professional designation, have a
minimum of two years experience in a tax role and be able to prepare and review
corporate, personal and trust tax returns. Given these qualifications, Ms. Cao
subsequently passed on her résumé to the recruiter and an interview was
arranged with the firm.
Ms. Cao’s résumé stated that she ensured
timely and accurate preparation of detailed tax returns (personal, trust,
corporate, GST); voluntary disclosures and clearance certificate applications
using Taxrep and FormulaTrix; prepared financial statements; and was currently
enrolled and in the process of completing her CGA Level 4 and PACE Level
Course. During the interview process, Ms. Cao met with the Tax Manager of the
firm along with the managing partner and a senior partner of the firm (who were
to determine the overall fit of Ms. Cao with the firm). Following the
completion of the interview process, Ms. Cao was offered a job as a Team
Accountant, Tax, and her contract was finalized on July 16, 2008. Ms. Cao’s contract
was for an indefinite term, set out a base salary of $60,000 per year, had a 90
day probationary period, three weeks’ vacation, participation in an incentive
program, and an entitlement to benefits after three months.
Ms. Cao started work on August 18, 2008 and reported to
the Tax Manager of the firm who assigned her various tasks each week. During
her brief employment time, Ms. Cao was given several different tasks to work on
and did not receive any negative feedback on her work. On September 25, 2008,
Ms. Cao was called into a meeting with the Tax Manager and a senior partner and
informed that she was being terminated, due to her not performing at the
required “intermediate level” and due to the fact that she would not be
completing her CGA designation by the summer of 2009.
In court, Ms. Cao stated that she had no knowledge that
she was to be performing as an “intermediate level” Accountant and that she had
never been informed by her employer that they had concerns about her work. Also,
the Tax Manager did acknowledge that, contrary to the firm’s Team Handbook, he
had not met for periodic meetings to review Ms. Cao’s performance and to offer
suggestions for improvements. The termination meeting had been the first
meeting that he, or anyone else at the firm, had had with her. Furthermore, nowhere
in Ms. Cao’s contract did it state that was there an obligation on Ms. Cao to
complete her CGA designation within a specified time.
Following her termination meeting, Ms. Cao received a
letter dated September 25, 2008 confirming her termination. The termination
letter did not allege cause or raise performance issues, despite the verbal reasons
given at the termination meeting. Also, The Record of Employment (ROE)
submitted to Service Canada stated that Ms. Cao’s termination was due to
“involuntary termination without cause.”
After hearing the evidence at trial, the court held that
Ms. Cao was wrongfully dismissed, in that the employer was found to have not
given Ms. Cao a reasonable or fair opportunity to demonstrate her fitness for
the position for which she was hired. Nor did the employer communicate any
reservations about her performance, or provide her with the opportunity to
improve prior to the termination.
Ms. Cao was awarded a payment equal to four months of reasonable notice.
C. WRONGFUL DISMISSAL AND PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES
A lower legal standard exists for what
constitutes just cause in cases of termination of probationary employees. Even
so, the onus is on the employer to show that it has just cause, even if that
just cause is simply that the employee is “unsuitable for the job.” This unsuitability factor can have much lower standards and can “include such
considerations as character, compatibility, as well as ability to meet the
present and future production standards expected by the employer.”
If an employer chooses to terminate for unsuitability, their judgment cannot be
questioned, but they must still prove that the termination was due to the
employee not being suitable for the position and not for another “reason or
improper motive which would not justify a dismissal.”
Furthermore, an employer must be able to show the court
that they “acted fairly and with reasonable diligence” when determining whether
the employee was suitable for the position. The probationary employee must be
“given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his ability to meet the
standards the employer sets out when he is hired, including not only a testing
of his skills, but also his ability to work in harmony with others, his
potential usefulness to the employer in the future, and such other factors as
the employer deems essential to the viable performance of the position.”
If employees are misled upon the basis on which they will be evaluated, or if
the employee did not do the required evaluation, their dismissal will not be
found to be in good faith, resulting in a possible wrongful dismissal lawsuit.
D. REASONABLE NOTICE
When there is dismissal without cause of
an employee hired on an indefinite term the common law requires an employer to
provide reasonable notice (or, compensation in lieu of notice) to an employee
upon termination (unless there is language in the contract to provide
otherwise). Although Section 57 of the ESA does not provide for notice to
those individuals employed less than three months, this section does not
preclude a court from applying a common law reasonable notice period. If the probationary
employee is wrongfully dismissed, they will also have a right to monetary damages
based on reasonable notice. In order to assess the length of the notice
period the court will “keep in mind that a probationary employee has taken a
risk and given up a previous job or other job finding opportunities to accept
the new position,” and subsequently evaluate the appropriate notice period. Therefore, depending upon the nature of the position, a wrongful dismissal
claim could be fairly substantial. While a short length of service will mitigate
against very long notice periods, other relevant factors, such as the
employee’s age, education, experience, and the seniority of the position are
all matters that a court will assess in determining an appropriate notice
period.
E. CONCLUSION
For employers, including charities and not-for-profits,
the Cao decision illustrates the need to be aware of the duty to assess,
and if necessary, terminate probationary employees in a fair and just manner. In
order to avoid wrongful dismissal claims by terminated probationary employees,
employers should regularly assess the performance of the employees during the
probationary period, and provide written and verbal feedback, so that the
employee may attempt to improve in areas where he or she may be found wanting.
In the event a terminated probationary employee does commence a claim, such
feedback will be important in proving that the employer acted reasonably and
fairly.