Since employees have no legal entitlement to continued employment, employers get to call the shots. Aside from allegations of discrimination, an employee’s only job security exists in the form of advance notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice.
Despite this, employers frequently bemoan the amount of severance they pay. Relying on traditional factors to calculate severance — age, length of service, type of position and prospects of re-employment — they arrive at a figure.
- All of these celebrities have had their nudes leaked 35 Pictures
- Here's what it's like to fish for your dinner at Zauo NYC (photos) 21 Pictures
However, while theoretically correct, this approach is practically faulty. Following it, without considering more, will lead to mistakenly overpaying an ex-employee and offending the bottom line. But something can be done. Although I can’t guarantee my approach is infallible, by introducing these measures, employers will save costs.
•Never use a formula. Employers who calculate notice based on a fixed formula, such as one month per year of service, risk overpaying, especially to long-service employees. Not only does this approach overlook any unique circumstances, but fixed formulas have little, if any, correlation to the notice a court would select. I am familiar with more than 100 factors a court could consider to assess proper notice, many of which will reduce the amounts paid.
•Implement contracts with termination provisions. Employers can displace the obligation to provide “reasonable” notice if an employment contract properly specifies some other amount. When acting for employers, I will strategically select an amount that is more than the employee’s minimum entitlement but less than he or she would receive if the matter were not addressed.
•Build a documentary file. Courts should not consider poor performance unless cause for termination is asserted. While unmeritorious allegations of cause rarely go to trial, if properly asserted, documented and argued, they can help employers leverage their position in settlement negotiations by raising the apprehensions of an employee, now more frightened to go to trial.
•Provide a proper reference letter. Many employers favour the simple name-rank-and-file approach to supplying a reference letter. For employees with satisfactory performance records, I see no reason to do so. A proper reference is an invaluable tool, used by employees to find other work. Once this occurs, an employer’s obligation to pay severance is reduced, if not eliminated.
•Consider working notice. In my experience, nothing makes an employee find other work faster than formally knowing his or her current job is a dead end. When he or she finds another position before the expiry of the working notice period, the employer is off the hook for severance that would otherwise be paid. Moreover, employees given working notice are obliged to continue to work and continue to contribute to the organization.
•Don’t pay a lump sum. If working notice is not feasible, provide salary continuance, not a lump sum. Then, if the employee finds another job during the salary continuance period, the employer can cease further payments, or pay only the difference if the new job pays less.
•Add a “clawback clause.” If following the above rule, the employer can provide an incentive to an employee on salary continuance to find another job, instead of lingering on the payroll. I usually counsel employers to provide 50 per cent of the remaining amounts that would have been paid, had the employee not found another job, if and when they do find one. If an employer does this, I find the total payments made are often less than if a clawback did not exist.