Slashdot Mirror
BlackBerry Sued By Over 300 Former Employees (mobilesyrup.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: BlackBerry is facing a class-action lawsuit from more than 300 former employees across Canada, according to a news release from law firm Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP. The Waterloo, Ontario-based tech company is accused of denying employees their termination entitlements by transferring them to a partner company and, once they had accepted employment there, handed them resignation letters. The former employees were then allegedly given their final date of work. "BlackBerry's actions amount to a termination of the employees' employment," the law firm said. "This entitles these employees to statutory, common law, and/or contractual entitlements on termination."
That should be constructive dismissal by Blackberry. If the stated facts are true Blackberry is going to lose some extra money here.
Whatever happened to unions! and H1B laws?
As described the events were undertaken to reduce the class of employees' time at their employer to 0 in a fairly blatant attempt to do an end run around Canadian Labor laws with respect to severance based on time at Blackberry. See constructive dismissal.
Sharp Practice.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"once they had accepted employment there, handed them resignation letters"
Isn't resignation something the employee hands to the employer, not the other way around? Am I missing something here, or is this just shoddy journalism?
That way we can be independent contractors, all of us. And you can make smartphones all by yersef.
Oh, wait.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
They should say they are sorry.
Hundreds and hundreds of words, and they can't even name the partner company. Are these people formerly employed by Blackberry still employed by the partner company? If the partner company quickly went belly up or fired them, they've got a legitimate beef. If they're still employed but looking for a lump sum payment because they were forced to change companies, then they're trying to get unearned cash.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The courts in Ontario will hand them their asses.
They are playing fast and loose to deprive people of the severance compensation they are entitled to under Ontario Law.
Ian Ameline
this is not about legal termination, this is about the company trying to pull a fast one in order to get out of paying severance pay BECAUSE they didnt have a legal reason to fire them but they didnt want to have to pay the amount that they are legally obligated to pay.Otherwise they would have justly terminated the employees with cause (and proper documentation)
Why are these laws so important? because they promote job security and job security is good for the economy.
Where do you work? would you be ok with your employer coming up to you and for no reason telling you to clean out your desk and get out? would you be ok with not getting any compensation at all, just told to GTFO?
they are not special little snowflakes as you so put it, they are the ones making sure that the company that you work for cant just do this to you. so, maybe they are better than you because they chose to fight rather than roll over for their corporate overlords.
This is in Ontario Canada. This is most definitely not an "at-will" jurisdiction when it comes to employment.
The Ontario Labour Relations Act applies, along with common law. (The entitlements written down are not what applies -- it is what is "usual and customary" that applies in Ontario for severance compensation -- and that is *much* more generous than what is written in the legislation.)
Anyone subject to severance (of any kind) in Ontario should consult with a lawyer experienced with the practice of employment law in Ontario before signing anything.
Ian Ameline
Termination being acceptable by either party for any legal reason... why do these special snowflakes think they are better than the rest of us?
That shit stayed south of the border in the USA.
And asserting your legal rights isn't being a special snowflake; crying on message boards about people asserting their legal rights is being a special snowflake.
Canadian law differs a bit from US but the fact this was obviously an attempt to bypass employee protection laws there are civil and criminal penalties here. Technically jail time but I doubt that will happen.
Canadian fines are also really different from the US. This will be a major blackeye publically as well as financially to Blackberry.
Fraud.
That is what was done to them. The criminal act of fraud. A Con. A Scam.
Money, the employees certainly deserve, but there's also no damn way those who cooked this plan up belong outside a jailcell.
Termination being acceptable by either party for any legal reason... why do these special snowflakes think they are better than the rest of us?
My aren't you precious, let me guess, you voted for the Scream'n Cheeto.
> Where do you work? would you be ok with your employer coming up to you and for no reason telling you to clean out your desk and get out? would you be ok with not getting any compensation at all, just told to GTFO?
> they are not special
I wouldn't really complain if they did, just as I could quit for any reason or no reason. I quit my last job, simply because I got a much better offer. My last employer was good to me, yet I "fired" them when something better came along. My wife decided to quit her job last week, just because she wanted to. (But then she got a promotion an hour before she planned to resign.) It's perfectly fair that on the other side my employer can also end the employment for whatever reason. BUT we don't live in Ontario. Ontario has laws about what the employer has to do. Since Blackberry hired people in Ontario, they need to follow the employment laws in Ontario.
Termination being acceptable by either party for any legal reason... why do these special snowflakes think they are better than the rest of us?
They are better than you, snowflake.
(IANAL, but have been in the thick of similar situation.) Ontario legal precedent is that if you accepted an offer with a new company which caused you to give up employment, then the new company is liable for termination benefits as if you had been employed there for the time at your old job as well. Companies have been getting more aggressive about terminations lately, I suspect BB's moves reflect this trend, but the laws haven't changed recently.
Nobody ever lost respect or reputation by standing up for their employment rights in these situations which, in Ontario at least, remain substantial. Time for the employees to contact a decent lawyer that specializes in termination. Given the number of people thrown out of the banks recently in Toronto, there are a number of battle-tested lawyers who can help. I'd encourage all affected to sign nothing, contact an experienced lawyer specializing in the field, who will likely consult for free initially, whose fees will likely be fixed, and who will likely be worth every penny. A month or more of termination pay per year of service should be the goal.
This is going to get BB roasted in court, if it ever gets that far.
Job security? These people still have jobs at a different company. Bb helped them get those jobs. The workers also willingly signed a document saying ok to switch jobs.
Ford Motor Company of Canada - http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
Termination being acceptable by either party for any legal reason... why do these special snowflakes think they are better than the rest of us?
The practice is completely illegal in the United States because of labor laws. You can certainly get rid of people, but you can't transfer them to a subsidiary to do it, that's considered Unemployment Insurance fraud. Companies pay UI tax based on their history of employment and layoffs, and benefits are based on the amount of time people worked at the company. When you transfer people to another company before getting rid of them, it hides your real employment figures and that of the employees, fraudulently providing yourself a tax benefit.
I don't know what the system is like in Canada, but in the US they would be civilly AND criminally liable based on Federal law and state statutes.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
In Canadian Labour law there's the notion of "constructive dismissal" (I'm sure there must be similar principles in the US), wherein an employer creates conditions in which an employee is effectively terminated, without an actual notice of layoff or termination. The classic example is reducing an employee's hours to or near 0. In most jurisdictions in Canada, "constructive dismissal" is viewed as a termination, and when that happens, no notice has been given commensurate with the employee's length of time working for the company, and that employee is due severance. Such actions also can cause serious with an employee being able to receive unemployment benefits, as the employee does not receive a "Record of Employment" showing the number of hours he worked.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't think BB would have violated any Federal laws up here, but they most certainly violated Ontario labor law. This is a classic case of constructive dismissal. Transferring employees to a subsidiary does not abrogate any legal or contractual obligations BB has to those employees, and since it's clear the intent here was to get them off of BB's books and then throw them out the door, that will make the constructive dismissal claims by the employees all the stronger.
My totally non-legal advice to BB is get out the checkbook, because they do not want a judge to make the finding and come up with the employees' award.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Termination being acceptable by either party for any legal reason... why do these special snowflakes think they are better than the rest of us?
The practice is completely illegal in the United States because of labor laws. You can certainly get rid of people, but you can't transfer them to a subsidiary to do it, that's considered Unemployment Insurance fraud. Companies pay UI tax based on their history of employment and layoffs, and benefits are based on the amount of time people worked at the company. When you transfer people to another company before getting rid of them, it hides your real employment figures and that of the employees, fraudulently providing yourself a tax benefit.
I don't know what the system is like in Canada, but in the US they would be civilly AND criminally liable based on Federal law and state statutes.
Don't worry Congress & the Cheeto'n Charge will fix that so they don't have to worry about paying UI for the deadbeats they're getting rid of.
"would you be ok with your employer coming up to you and for no reason telling you to clean out your desk and get out?"
No, I wouldn't be "ok" with that, but I would consider it my employer's decision.
"would you be ok with not getting any compensation at all, just told to GTFO?"
Again, no, but my "ok"ness does not matter. I did not negotiate any sort of severance pay at the time of my hiring, so why would I expect any compensation?
Where do you work? would you be ok with your employer coming up to you and for no reason telling you to clean out your desk and get out? would you be ok with not getting any compensation at all, just told to GTFO?
Considering I could just say "I quit" and do the same thing, yes.
Don't worry Congress & the Cheeto'n Charge will fix that so they don't have to worry about paying UI for the deadbeats they're getting rid of.
If UI (and workforce services, and reemployment services) had actually done anything except help leeches avoid working, Trump would not have been elected anyway.
I see we have another well informed Republican.
Don't worry Congress & the Cheeto'n Charge will fix that so they don't have to worry about paying UI for the deadbeats they're getting rid of.
If UI (and workforce services, and reemployment services) had actually done anything except help leeches avoid working, Trump would not have been elected anyway.
I see we have another well informed Republican.
Oh, sorry. I thought we were still going by the white working class not getting support idea. I forgot we were now on the "It's Russia's fault" narrative.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Article is intentionally misleading. It's not outright false, but it's written so that a casual reader will think this happened:
Blackberry transfers employees to sham company.
Sham company (Blackberry) fires workers.
What happened is that
Blackberry transfers employees to Ford motor company of Canada.
Blackberry informs employees (after arranging the transfer) that the years of service do not transfer over, and they don't get any severance.
Still seems scummy, but not the same level of scummy.
In my last couple weeks at my last employer I worked hard to get them ready for my departure - documenting things, walking people through tasks that had been my responsibility, helping review resumes for my replacement, etc. I also stressed repeatedly that it seemed likely they would occasionally come across some code or configuration I had done and it would be helpful to ask me about it - so please ask! I told them if I could save them two or hours trying to figure something out, by me taking five minutes to answer a question, I wanted to do that for them.
18 months later I still stay in touch with my old boss occasionally, and she's said if I ever want to come back they'll make room for me. So I wouldn't say I burned any bridges there. I made the best choice for my family, just as I'd expect them to make the best choice for the organization, and I did what I could to ease the transition for them.
I mentioned doing what's best for the organization. At one company I own, I once fired myself. I founded the company and led it for fifteen years. After fifteen years, I was burned out and wasn't being very productive. So I fired the unproductive employee (myself) and put other people in charge. That put me unemployed, so I went and got a different job (the job mentioned above, my employer prior to my current employment).
So actually not only would I understand if someone let me go, I've actually fired myself. It worked out fine - I enjoyed new challenges in the job, and the old company (which I still own, but don't work for) kept going without me working there.
You're repeating the summary with different words. Tomato, Blackberry is trying to cheat their way out of paying severance benefits, tomahtoe, Blackberry is trying to cheat their way out of paying severance benefits.
Considering I could just say "I quit" and do the same thing, yes.
Your contract covers this scenario however. That is, both parties agree that you quitting is an acceptable outcome. Most places will require a minimum of X weeks notice (some as many as 3 months in very senior roles) to aid the handover of responsibilities and find replacements. There is a distinct difference when the termination is a surprise, and not a result of breaking the contract. If an employee does something in violation of their contract, sure, instant dismissal is expected, and there is an assumption the employee either knew or was at fault for not realising they were breaking contract.
Most countries have laws about company-initiated termination because in the average work environment the business has greater power in the relationship than the worker. The laws are there to ensure companies (which have no inherently moral outlook... in my experience, often the opposite) can't abuse their position in this negotiation. The cost to dump an employee helps force companies to prefer to upskill and re-allocate individuals, rather than wholesale firing cycles.
becaue they negotiated a contract with protection clauses?
I've seen a very large company with a huge IT division take an entire team of 20 senior tech staff and had their manager tell them "okay, we're outsourcing what you do to company X - you can either take a job offer from X, or you can quit".
Not a single one of these 20 idiots were smart enough to realize that they had a third option.
12 of them quit (no severance). 8 of them took the job offer with company X (where they signed a new contract and basically started over with zero years service). And of course they were immediately overwhelmed with work and 6 of them quit company X because the environment sucked so bad.
And now the 2 people left with company X are horribly overwhelmed even with the assistance of 4 people from overseas.
Crap, forgot this was Slashdot. This also was in Canada - where the law says everyone and anyone get minimum of 1 week of severance for every year of service, but for highly skilled workers it's 2 or 3 per year (or more, if you spent 20 years doing something your company really really needed but was a career dead-end).
It sounds like you gave a two week notice (or whatever length of time), the previous comment you made sounded like you just walked out one day, which is where the burning bridges comment above appears to come from.
There is never anything wrong with leaving a company for whatever reason, but it is wise to give proper notice before leaving the company to not leave them in a lurch.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?