comm 320
Cases Comm 315
Case1 : King v.BioChem Therapeutic Inc. Fact: Dr King is hired by Bio Chem. She signed a special contract that specifies a period of probation. During this period, she can be let go but you have to be known the wrong behavior in order to be able to rectify it. If the wrong behavior persists then your contract will be terminated.
Issue: Is the termination of the contract of Dr King for fault justified?
Ratio
Employer version of facts:
1st meeting: after 5 months and a half, during this meeting, the management team are saying that they told her that she was being unsubordinated
2nd meeting: after 10 months, the management team told her that her behavior was still being not acceptable and that constitutes a second warning
Employee version of facts
1st meeting: prohibition period was over (5weeks and a half instead of 6months) and she was offered stock options
2nd meeting: she got more stock options
The judges have now to decide which story is the more credible, the more logical?
Based on the fact that the employer version is contradictory, why would someone discuss the possibility of having additional stock option to an employee that is on the second step to dismissal?
A Dr King version makes more sense.
We conclude that because the termination of the contract was unfair, she should have received reasonable notice, she is entitled to damages.
Damages include:
Damages due to stress, anxiety and inconvenience
Damages to reputation
Loss of salary
Vacation pay
Loss of stock options
Relocation expenses
Case 2: Dube v. Volcano Techonologies
Fact: Mr Dube was recruited in September 1997 as the production manager for one of the plants of the company Volcano.
In his contract, it was indicated that “votre emploie pourra etre termine en tout temps par la Societe pour cause or motif serieux, avec les preavis ou indemnités équivalents prevue sur la loi sur les normes du travail. ”
He was laid off in December 1999 for financial
Case1 : King v.BioChem Therapeutic Inc. Fact: Dr King is hired by Bio Chem. She signed a special contract that specifies a period of probation. During this period, she can be let go but you have to be known the wrong behavior in order to be able to rectify it. If the wrong behavior persists then your contract will be terminated.
Issue: Is the termination of the contract of Dr King for fault justified?
Ratio
Employer version of facts:
1st meeting: after 5 months and a half, during this meeting, the management team are saying that they told her that she was being unsubordinated
2nd meeting: after 10 months, the management team told her that her behavior was still being not acceptable and that constitutes a second warning
Employee version of facts
1st meeting: prohibition period was over (5weeks and a half instead of 6months) and she was offered stock options
2nd meeting: she got more stock options
The judges have now to decide which story is the more credible, the more logical?
Based on the fact that the employer version is contradictory, why would someone discuss the possibility of having additional stock option to an employee that is on the second step to dismissal?
A Dr King version makes more sense.
We conclude that because the termination of the contract was unfair, she should have received reasonable notice, she is entitled to damages.
Damages include:
Damages due to stress, anxiety and inconvenience
Damages to reputation
Loss of salary
Vacation pay
Loss of stock options
Relocation expenses
Case 2: Dube v. Volcano Techonologies
Fact: Mr Dube was recruited in September 1997 as the production manager for one of the plants of the company Volcano.
In his contract, it was indicated that “votre emploie pourra etre termine en tout temps par la Societe pour cause or motif serieux, avec les preavis ou indemnités équivalents prevue sur la loi sur les normes du travail. ”
He was laid off in December 1999 for financial