If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canoe)   Legally obliged to be in court for the trial of the guy who sexually assaulted you? That's a firing   (cnews.canoe.ca) divider line 64
    More: Asinine, contempt of court, QMI Agency, Supreme Court of Canada, the University of Western Ontario, single-parent, St. Joseph, free press, St. Joseph's Hospital  
•       •       •

15644 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Oct 2010 at 3:37 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-10-22 09:01:01 PM  
According to the article she wasn't fired, she was downsized (or whatever the term is nowadays)

Still as assholish time to do it.

But this quote confuses me:

Austin said Moore didn't give her a severance cheque but paid her $1,069, $10 less than her usual two-week wage, despite the fact she only worked 25 of her usual 75 hours.

If you lose your job and your employer gives you more money than you are entitled to by hours worked, that's called severance pay.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-10-22 09:03:01 PM  
I'm surprised there isn't a statute on the subject of not firing witnesses because they testified. Not that it would help her because her position was eliminated for unrelated reasons (supposedly, but you have to prove otherwise) and she admits she was never threatened with job-related consequences if she testified instead of working ("he never responded").
 
2010-10-22 11:03:45 PM  
So just monitor the doctor and make sure he doesn't hire anything close to a secretary, or whatever it is that she was.

Otherwise make him hire her again.
 
2010-10-23 03:02:57 AM  
jaylectricity: So just monitor the doctor and make sure he doesn't hire anything close to a secretary, or whatever it is that she was.

Yeah this is pretty easy. Call the place daily and if the same person is answering every day, he or she is the new secretary and it becomes a wrongful dismissal suit.
 
2010-10-23 03:45:18 AM  
why is there a pic of a sexual assault victim in this story?
 
2010-10-23 03:48:28 AM  
She comes in colors everywhere: why is there a pic of a sexual assault victim in this story?

Because she was reflecting on her situation - in a picture where a window is casting her reflection, duh.
 
2010-10-23 03:58:55 AM  
Nice going, subby.

/Not really
 
2010-10-23 03:59:34 AM  
I hit it.
 
2010-10-23 04:02:52 AM  
Why don't the hosers here put up a Canada tag, eh?

Doc is a really compassionate human being....
 
2010-10-23 04:10:57 AM  
Approves.

i.imgur.com
 
2010-10-23 04:22:42 AM  
Legally obligated maybe?
 
2010-10-23 04:35:13 AM  
Galactic_Empanada: This is a very dramatic image.

She was obviously asking for it.
 
2010-10-23 04:39:38 AM  
FARK has jumped the shark!

Why is it just a bunch of inciting headlines with people making a bunch of meh'ish comments.

/Where are the boobies links?
//Where are the domo-kun references?
///Where is the dolphine humper references.
 
2010-10-23 04:41:33 AM  
So she got farked over... again?
 
2010-10-23 04:43:02 AM  
Ya, except for the fact that she was laid off due to restructuring and was not fired. Sucky timing, but an employer is not obligated to maintain an employee they don't need, just because her life sucks.
 
2010-10-23 04:51:44 AM  
Company should wait 3 months or so then reopen the position. When she goes to apply for it, say they are wondering why she was unemployed for those 3 months and that her skills aren't up-to-date with their current needs.
 
2010-10-23 04:54:59 AM  
Yeah except for the fact she claims she was extremely busy, so there's no need for her position to be eliminated. Plus...no notice? Right after this shiat?

Yeeeeeeah. What a prick.
 
2010-10-23 04:56:59 AM  
Enemabag Jones: /Where are the boobies links?

Gone at the behest of Drew's corporate sponsors overlords.

Enemabag Jones: Why is it just a bunch of inciting headlines with people making a bunch of meh'ish comments.

You must've been gone for a while. The only way to get a greenlight nowadays is result to lowest-common-denominator trolling on par with what a 13 year old with autism could compose by drooling on a keyboard.
 
2010-10-23 05:13:54 AM  
Enemabag Jones: Where are the boobies links?

You still see them, if you're a Total Farker.
 
2010-10-23 05:15:08 AM  
TsukasaK: Where are the boobies links?

You still see them, if you're a Total Farker.
 
2010-10-23 05:21:27 AM  
Lady Indica: Yeah except for the fact she claims she was extremely busy, so there's no need for her position to be eliminated.

That means nothing, it's what literally everyone ever downsized, ever, has said.

Plus...no notice? Right after this shiat?

That's a reasonable objection, sure. Not really damning, though.

Yeeeeeeah. What a prick.

Being a prick's not illegal.
 
2010-10-23 05:22:53 AM  
Maybe if she stopped dressing like a whore, none of this would have happened.
 
2010-10-23 05:23:15 AM  
Gig103: jaylectricity: So just monitor the doctor and make sure he doesn't hire anything close to a secretary, or whatever it is that she was.

Yeah this is pretty easy. Call the place daily and if the same person is answering every day, he or she is the new secretary and it becomes a wrongful dismissal suit.


It's not quite that easy. For example, the "new" secretary could be a nurse who was just told she now has the responsibilities of two full time people.

Happened to me in the last recession; ended up with three peoples positions. The whole "I don't care it's impossible, just be glad you have a job" attitude was a great motivator to find a new job.

/Dr. in this story is a dick
 
2010-10-23 05:47:35 AM  
It's truly amazing how farking ignorant so many people are in regards to the law when it comes to firing people. Here it is in a nutshell (for Ontario, Canada).

An employer does NOT need cause to terminate your employment.

An employer does NOT need to give you a reason why your employment is being terminated.

An employer DOES have to give you either proper notice or severance pay in lieu of notice.

An employer can NOT arbitrarily terminate your employment without cause under certain circumstances (e.g. maternity leave, jury duty, challenging your employer under employment regulations).

Ya, it sucks getting fired. Suck it up. Quit moping, and start printing resumes.
 
2010-10-23 06:02:34 AM  
I agree that her being downsized came at a bad time, but I see nothing in that article that gives any indication that she was fired for going to appear in court. That she was downsized appears to be nothing more than a bad coincidence. I don't see any evidence of anything else.
 
2010-10-23 06:17:32 AM  
I was under the impression that all of Canada was the same -- after 3 months of employment, an employer cannot just fire someone for the heck of it.

Or is that just BC?
 
2010-10-23 06:24:37 AM  
Bathia_Mapes: TsukasaK: Where are the boobies links?

You still see them, if you're a Total Farker.


You said, "You still see them, if you're a Total Farker," twice.
 
2010-10-23 06:41:59 AM  
horrified: I was under the impression that all of Canada was the same -- after 3 months of employment, an employer cannot just fire someone for the heck of it.

Or is that just BC?


Neither. It took me all of 2 minutes to google and read BC regulations, and they are generally the same as Ontario.

An employer does NOT need cause to terminate your employment.

An employer does NOT need to give you a reason why your employment is being terminated.

An employer DOES have to give you either proper notice or severance pay in lieu of notice.

An employer can NOT arbitrarily terminate your employment without cause under certain circumstances (e.g. maternity leave, jury duty, challenging your employer under employment regulations).
 
2010-10-23 06:43:39 AM  
Enemabag Jones: FARK has jumped the shark!

Why is it just a bunch of inciting headlines with people making a bunch of meh'ish comments.

/Where are the boobies links?
//Where are the domo-kun references?
///Where is the dolphine humper references.


t2.gstatic.com
 
2010-10-23 06:50:31 AM  
She comes in colors everywhere:
why is there a pic of a sexual assault victim in this story?

Probably because she said it was okay. Some people don't mind their identity being public.

In contrast, a Toronto woman who was a victim of the "balcony rapist" decades ago and sued the police there for not warning people about him, is STILL called "Jane Doe" in print, even when interviewed about other cases.
 
2010-10-23 08:37:36 AM  
FTA: "I broke into tears," said Austin. "I've been to hell and back, but I'm very good at my job and I'm very proud of how hard I work. He's not comfortable with the fact my face is everywhere," she said.

At the very least, this a$$hole plastic surgeon could have offered her a free facelift and allowed her to keep her job.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-10-23 08:51:44 AM  
guytoronto

In the United States the rules are about the same except notice or severance pay is not required. Two weeks notice or severance is customary in professional jobs, and in most cases a federal law requires 60 days notice of mass layoffs of more than 50 people.
 
2010-10-23 09:14:44 AM  
Terrible headline. Submitter should world for the mainstream media, with such masterful grasp of headlines that imply something that isn't actually true because it makes it more sensational.

The fact she was downsized has nothing discernible to do with the fact she testified.
 
2010-10-23 09:22:34 AM  
He probably wanted to get rid of her for months, but decided to wait until the trial was over. Think of the shiat he would have gotten had he done this in the middle of her trial.
 
2010-10-23 09:40:01 AM  
ZAZ: guytoronto

In the United States the rules are about the same except notice or severance pay is not required. Two weeks notice or severance is customary in professional jobs, and in most cases a federal law requires 60 days notice of mass layoffs of more than 50 people.


This one is in Ontario. The amount of notice correlates with the length of time employed. She had been with them since April. She was probably entitled to one week, which it sounds like she got (plus the hours she had actually worked).

And Lady Indica, as others have said, how busy she perceived herself to be is a very poor indicator of her performance on the job. People who are awful at their job rarely have insight into their poor performance. I'm not saying this woman was bad at her job. Just that it's not much use listening to her say she was good and really busy.
 
2010-10-23 10:27:00 AM  
guytoronto: It's truly amazing how farking ignorant so many people are in regards to the law when it comes to firing people. Here it is in a nutshell (for Ontario, Canada).

An employer does NOT need cause to terminate your employment.

An employer does NOT need to give you a reason why your employment is being terminated.

An employer DOES have to give you either proper notice or severance pay in lieu of notice.

An employer can NOT arbitrarily terminate your employment without cause under certain circumstances (e.g. maternity leave, jury duty, challenging your employer under employment regulations).

Ya, it sucks getting fired. Suck it up. Quit moping, and start printing resumes.


Except that's the bare minimum and there's a big clause in the ESA stating that an employee may choose to sue an employer in a court of law for "wrongful dismissal", which has a much broader reach, such as suing for being fired for discriminatory reasons. If it's found that she was let go for reasons other than her position being eliminated (IE her position still exists), she has a case. This is exactly what she's doing and it's her right to do so.
 
2010-10-23 10:34:33 AM  
TsukasaK: Enemabag Jones: /Where are the boobies links?

Gone at the behest of Drew's corporate sponsors overlords.

Enemabag Jones: Why is it just a bunch of inciting headlines with people making a bunch of meh'ish comments.

You must've been gone for a while. The only way to get a greenlight nowadays is result to lowest-common-denominator trolling on par with what a 13 year old with autism could compose by drooling on a keyboard.


Or if the link involves MST3K, that Wheaton person and "the best 6 somethings" spread across 2 pages.
 
2010-10-23 11:02:13 AM  
There is a misconception that an unfair or incorrect reasons for termination equate to illegal reasons. This is not true. I know someone who was fired for being misdirecting merchandise (aka theft). The evidence they used was fallacious and provably false. however, they still fired him, and he has no legal recourse. he is trying to sue, because it is very unfair. But as long as he wasn't fired for an illegal reason, the reasons for termination don't have to be fair.

Now, if an incorrect or unsubstantiated reason is given as cause for termination during a reference check, that is a whole different ball of wax.
 
2010-10-23 11:03:23 AM  
No big deal. Somebody will hire her after reading this story. I mean if she's going to work for $500 CDN a week it should be no trouble finding someone to hire her.
 
2010-10-23 11:04:34 AM  
Yeah, you still hail to the queen, and English common law seems to frown upon these shenanigans.

Enjoy losing your practice, you stupid fark.
 
2010-10-23 11:05:35 AM  
But was she fired fired?
 
2010-10-23 11:08:35 AM  
SAN66: If it's found that she was let go for reasons other than her position being eliminated (IE her position still exists), she has a case.

Let's go over this again:

Under certain circumstances, an employer can NOT arbitrarily terminate your employment without cause under certain circumstances (e.g. maternity leave, jury duty, challenging your employer under employment regulations). This was already noted above.

As long as the employer adheres to the termination rules (notice/severance), and the dismissal cannot be linked to a 'protected' situation like maternal leave or jury duty, this woman has no case. Zilch, zero, nada. It doesn't matter if the position still exists or not. Nowhere does it say such a thing in Ontario/Canada law.

If you don't believe me, how about this:
"An employer is not required to give an employee a reason why his or her employment is being terminated."
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/esworkbook/termsev.php (new window)
 
2010-10-23 11:09:38 AM  
No Such Agency: She comes in colors everywhere:
why is there a pic of a sexual assault victim in this story?

Probably because she said it was okay. Some people don't mind their identity being public.

In contrast, a Toronto woman who was a victim of the "balcony rapist" decades ago and sued the police there for not warning people about him, is STILL called "Jane Doe" in print, even when interviewed about other cases.


Maybe I need coffee but I keep reading that as "baloney rapist" and I'm just getting this huge grin.
 
2010-10-23 11:26:00 AM  
there was a hardees in the cincy area that let their employees know they were closing the restaurant by removing the signs, boarding up windows, and chaining doors overnight. the morning crew came the next day to a sign on the door that said "this location is now closed". never any mention of it by the owners.
 
2010-10-23 11:41:59 AM  
ChromoSomes: FTA: "I broke into tears," said Austin. "I've been to hell and back, but I'm very good at my job and I'm very proud of how hard I work. He's not comfortable with the fact my face is everywhere," she said.

At the very least, this a$$hole plastic surgeon could have offered her a free facelift and allowed her to keep her job.


Also throw in liposuction, a vag job and anal bleaching.

img543.imageshack.us
 
2010-10-23 11:46:29 AM  
guytoronto: SAN66: If it's found that she was let go for reasons other than her position being eliminated (IE her position still exists), she has a case.

Let's go over this again:

...

If you don't believe me, how about this:
"An employer is not required to give an employee a reason why his or her employment is being terminated."
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/esworkbook/termsev.php (new window)


Wow! I read the same website! Seriously, there's this section at the very bottom (You have to read the whole website) about Wrongful Dismissal. Yes there is a bare minimum set of rules that an employer must follow when firing someone. No, they do not have to give someone a reason when firing them. Yes, the fired employee can sue for Wrongful Dismissal at which point the employer will have to state their reason for firing the employee to a judge (as well as other evidence) and it will be determined whether they Wrongfully Dismissed the employee. In this case, if the employer let go Mrs. Austin because of her trial or because they didn't like her or because they terminated her for reasons outside her work performance or corporate restructuring, then she has a case for wrongful dismissal.
 
2010-10-23 11:59:48 AM  
The surgeon had better armor plate his ass. The majority of cosmetic plastic surgery patients are women, as word of this little maneuverer gets around his income is gonna suffer.

If he'd waited until December he could have at least claimed a downturn in business. Idiot on several levels.
 
2010-10-23 12:01:45 PM  
guytoronto: SAN66: If it's found that she was let go for reasons other than her position being eliminated (IE her position still exists), she has a case.

Let's go over this again:

Under certain circumstances, an employer can NOT arbitrarily terminate your employment without cause under certain circumstances (e.g. maternity leave, jury duty, challenging your employer under employment regulations). This was already noted above.

As long as the employer adheres to the termination rules (notice/severance), and the dismissal cannot be linked to a 'protected' situation like maternal leave or jury duty, this woman has no case. Zilch, zero, nada. It doesn't matter if the position still exists or not. Nowhere does it say such a thing in Ontario/Canada law.

If you don't believe me, how about this:
"An employer is not required to give an employee a reason why his or her employment is being terminated."
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/esworkbook/termsev.php (new window)


While this is true, if the reason given for the termination is disproven (i.e. an eliminated position is filled quickly), it leaves the door open to speculation on what the true reason for dismissal was. All it takes is a slight pattern 'the last four terminations were all of people over the age of 60' or a perceived bias or slight 'the office felt hostile towards women because they had a hooters calendar up', and you usually have a case that will be reach settlement.

That is why, in the past, I have always advised people to be completely honest and thorough in terminations. For example, a friend of mine was firing a sysadmin for downloading porn on a company laptop as the stated reason. The real reason was that the sysadmin had been an underwhelming performer who was consistently getting mediocre reviews. The problem was that 1) other people, including the guy doing the firing, had sent inappropriate items through e-mail, 2) the person being fired was of a protected demographic, and 3) the only other person who had been fired for the same reason was of the same inappropriate demographic. They were both legit terminations, but based on the patter of actions, I thought they could easily make a case. Luckily, they didn't try. Had they just been honest 'We are letting you go because you are underperforming', there would have been no potential issue (as long as the udnerperformance was demonstrate-able and documented).
 
2010-10-23 12:43:49 PM  
When someone is gone for a few days and they realize they can run things without out you, your job is in trouble. Might have already been mentioned in the thread, didn't read it.

Still think it's terrible. I feel for this woman's situation.
 
2010-10-23 12:47:43 PM  
This one hits close to home...like over 30 years ago. I am making a general statement. Hopefully, there is no confusion.
This sounds like the town I grew up in. Some things will never change, I guess. She is lucky things worked out as well as they did.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report