Choose one of the cases to complete.. McKinley v. BC Tel et al (2001) 200 DLR. (
ID: 353042 • Letter: C
Question
Choose one of the cases to complete.. McKinley v. BC Tel et al (2001) 200 DLR. (4th) 385 (s.cc.)- Martin McKinley was a chartered accountant who worked as a controller for several BC Tel companies. He developed high blood pressure, a condition which at first was controlled by medication. Eventually, under his doctor's advice he had to take a leave of absence from his employment. He discussed with his superior his desire to return to work in a less responsible position, but no such position was offered even though such positions opened up in the organization. The company made him a severance offer that was rejected. His employment was terminated and this action for wrongful dismissal was brought against BC Tel. At the time of his termination McKinley had been employed by B.C. Tel for 17 years. When his employment was terminated, he lost his short term and long term disability benefits. As a result, Mr. McKinley brought this wrongful dismissal action. He claimed that the company had dismissed him in a "high handed and flagrant manner" amounting to "intentional infliction of mental suffering". This was denied by the company. They claimed that the employment relationship had been frustrated and that they had offered a reasonable severance package. Question: Did the company have just cause or termination? If not, what would be an appropriate remedy in these circumstances? If the company had been guilty of bad faith in the termination proces how would this affect the remedies to be awarded? How would it affect your answer to know that well into the trial the company was allowed to change their defence to just cause for dismissal? The new defence was based on a letter they discovered which indicated that the doctor had recommended a type of medication that would allow him to return to work and that McKinley's withholding of this letter amounted to dishonesty justifying the terminationExplanation / Answer
In this specific situation was not accepted as the employee was not required to be terminated for the specific call. According to the ethical standards of the organisations and looking at the working portfolio of the employee which was working for 17 years for the same company company shouldn't have been terminated the employees employment. Even the employee was offered a reasonable severance package, it would not have given an adequate fairness to the decision of termination for the specific employee as employee was in need of a job and they were several low profile Jobs available in the same organisation.
The nature of his medical condition it was not a long time requirement of absence. This is specific incident directly shows that employer negligently terminated the employee on the basis of his health conditions.
In this specific situation, this condition could have been handled by implementing a specific leave for the employee according to his medical conditions as it would have directly incremented the ethical terms of your organisation in favour of the employees which would have been definitely increase the overall employee satisfaction.
This is specific incident was based on a single event of dishonesty. The court should rule in the favor of the plaintiff . As the employer terminated the employee on the basis his medical condition which are not even delete able to restore performance in long term, court should rule against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.