April 01, 2012
|Years of Employment||26 years|
|Company||Hathro Management Partnership AND Thomson, Rogers (law firm)|
|Case Name||Mattiassi v. Hathro Management Partnership, 2011 CarswellOnt 11431 (Ont. Small Claims Court)|
While this is a small claims court decision, Deputy Justice Prattas addressed the issues comprehensively. Employers are often confused by the distinctions between termination pay and severance pay and how they are to be applied. Additionally, this case also clarifies the court’s position on situations where a company creates a separate entity for the purposes of managing and employing the employees.
The law firm of Thomson, Rogers formed a management company, Hathro Management Partnership, to provide administrative services to the law firm. Ms. Mattiassi was employed directly by Hathro to work for Thomson, Rogers. A managing partner of Thomson, Rogers was also the president of Hathro. The court concluded that the question to be asked is “who in substance is the employer”. Liability should flow from that answer. The true employer must be ascertained on the basis of where effective control over the employee resides. An employment relationship is not simply a matter of form and technical corporate structure. The court found that both Thomson, Rogers and Hathro were the employers and both were jointly and severally liable to Mattiassi.
When an employer fires an employee who has been continuously employed for at least 3 months, the employer must provide either:
1. written notice of termination (the employee works out the notice period); or
2. termination pay;
3. or a combination of both
Termination pay is forward looking. It is provided to assist the employee during a period in which new employment is sought. An employer does not have to provide the employee with a reason as to why the employment is being terminated. Termination pay must also include vacation pay on the termination pay period. Employees are also entitled to benefits during the termination notice period. These payments must be paid within 7 days or on the employee’s next regular pay date whichever is later.
The following is the minimum written termination notice periods required under the ESA:
|Length of Employment||Notice Required|
|Less than 3 months||None|
|3 months but less than 1 year||1 week|
|1 year but less than 3 years||2 weeks|
|3 years but less than 4 years||3 weeks|
|4 years but less than 5 years||4 weeks|
|5 years but less than 6 years||5 weeks|
|6 years but less than 7 years||6 weeks|
|7 years but less than 8 years||7 weeks|
|8 years or more||8 weeks|
Severance pay is backwards looking. It’s purpose is to compensate an employee for years of service. An employee is entitled to severance pay under the following circumstances:
The amount of severance pay is calculated as follows:
Regular week’s wages x number of years (plus number of months divided by 12)
The maximum severance under ESA is 26 weeks. It must be paid within 7 days or in instalments if a written agreement is signed. Severance pay is in addition to any amount owing to the employee for termination pay or pursuant to an employment contract.
Hathro provided Mattiassi with 54 weeks working notice. At the end of the working notice period, Mattiassi was provided with termination pay of 8.67 weeks.
Hathro argued before the court that Mattiassi was not entitled to her claim for severance pay of 26 weeks because the total amount of notice and pay provided to Mattiassi was 62.67 weeks. The court held that Hathro could not combine Mattiassi’s entitlement under the ESA to termination pay and severance pay. They had to be calculated separately. The result was that the termination notice of 54 weeks provided to Mattiassi was adequate as it exceeded the minimum amount of notice required under the ESA of 8 weeks. However, Hathro owed Mattiassi for severance pay for 26 weeks. The court deducted the 8.67 weeks pay Mattiassi received on termination from the 26 weeks of severance pay owed to Mattiassi.
|............for the Employer||...........for the Employee|