Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A less severe form of involuntary termination is often referred to as a layoff (also redundancy or being made redundant in British English). A layoff is usually not strictly related to personal performance but instead due to economic cycles or the company's need to restructure itself, the firm itself going out of business, or a change in the function of the employer (for example, a certain ...
Dismissal (colloquially called firing or sacking) is the termination of employment by an employer against the will of the employee. Though such a decision can be made by an employer for a variety of reasons, [1] ranging from an economic downturn to performance-related problems on the part of the employee, being fired has a strong stigma in some ...
Q: I am a medical technologist with 10 plus years experience working in a hospital laboratory. I was terminated two years ago and have not been able to land a job with any hospital in my area. I ...
Just cause is a common standard in employment law, as a form of job security. When a person is terminated for just cause, it means that they have been terminated for misconduct, or another sufficient reason. [1] A person terminated for just cause is generally not entitled to notice severance, nor unemployment benefits depending on local laws. [2]
At this point, your job is to minimize the impact and value of being fired. Using language that makes you look like a sore loser will only emphasize the "loser" part of that phrase and will not ...
There are oral employment contracts, and written employment contracts, and combinations of oral and written employment contracts. In Canadian common law, there is a basic distinction as to dismissals. There are two basic types of dismissals, or terminations: dismissal with cause and termination without cause.
Prior to 1995, an employee could be dismissed in terms of the contract of employment, which could permit any reason for dismissal. Since 1995, an employee may be dismissed only for misconduct, operational reasons and incapacity, given that procedural fairness is maintained.
If not done correctly, workplace dismissal and the way in which it is handled can result in a grievance being filed. This specific case highlights a case of dismissal gone wrong. In 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rewarded a wrongfully dismissed employee named John Gordon Pate $550,000 in damages for his March 1999 dismissal. [9]