Latest news with #CHAUDHRI
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CHAUDHRI: Too many tech layoffs blamed on poor performance
It was Mae West who said an ounce of performance is worth a pound of promises. Being able to focus, execute and 'perform' are good traits for anyone to have – particularly for employees. But performance, or more specifically the measurement of it, can be a nebulous exercise. Some metrics of performance are cut and dry and clearly objective, while other elements can be entirely subjective. Performance, like beauty, may lie in the eye of its beholder. No doubt, two managers may have a very different view of the same employee's performance. The very fact that performance can be measured differently by different people can give employers some broad discretion when it comes to assessing performance. Some tech companies have harnessed the relative vagueness of performance assessment to support mass layoffs of employees. It's an alarming trend. SFGate reported that Jack Dorsey, CEO of Block, laid off 931 workers earlier this year, including employees who were 'off strategy' and 'underperforming.' Dorsey told Business Insider in 2023 that he eliminated drawn-out performance improvement plans and preferred to terminate underperformers 'without delay.' Terminating 931 workers at the same time for purported under performance seems staggering, particularly when the company abolished an important performance management tool. Was this a mass layoff masquerading as something else? Microsoft and Meta have also reportedly tied large scale layoffs to alleged widespread employee underperformance. Similarly, Business Insider reported recently that Salesforce has introduced a new 'PEP' or 'PIP' program. Under this program employees are offered a 'Prompt Exit Package' with less or lower severance. If employees refuse the PEP, 'they will be put on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan),' according to the story. Business Insider reported that the performance pressure at Salesforce was implemented 'as it executes its plan to reduce its workforce by 10%.' CHAUDHRI: Court of Appeal sends warning to Ontario employers CHAUDHRI: Can your employer force you back into the office? CHAUDHRI: Are you being quiet-fired? While it makes some sense for employers to apply a higher level of scrutiny on employees if a reduction in workforce is being considered, there are obvious issues with the approach. Firstly, performance assessments should never be made arbitrarily. An employee should be rated in a good faith way, not in anticipation of a future demotion or termination. If an employee is slated to be terminated (or even being considered for termination) an employer should not arbitrarily tinker with the employee's performance rating in advance of the termination. This should be obvious, but when mass layoffs are being tied to performance issues we must explore why an employer would be incentivized to do so. Many employees receive raises, bonuses and commissions based on performance ratings. The higher the rating, the higher the bonus or raise. Now, if someone who is generally a high performer is terminated, they would expect a severance package that aligns with the compensation flowing from their high performance scores. In order to reduce costs, some employers may, on a bad faith basis, be painting good performers as bad or mediocre performers to subsequently reduce bonus/commission payments on termination. For example, in anticipation of the termination, lower the performance rating so as to support lower payouts on bonuses or other incentives. While one must be careful to call out employer practices, it seems implausible that there were, at the same time, 931 poor performers at Block who all had to be done away with at once. Employees should not take a poor performance review lying down. If the review is not fair or reasonable, it is of vital importance that it is protested, in writing. Saying nothing will lead an employer to argue that you accepted your fate, unfair as it was. Canadian courts must be prepared to explore poor performance ratings just prior to a termination, particularly when an employee is terminated as part of a larger reduction. It is a tool that is being used too often by powerful companies and should be explored, not ignored.
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CHAUDHRI: Can your employer force you back into the office?
While most of my columns as of late have been laser focused on the impact of tariffs to employment law in this country, I would be failing you if I didn't share a meaningful update to the law surrounding remote work. I have written extensively about return to work mandates post-COVID, including the hybrid models rolled out by tech giants like Apple and Meta. Earlier this year, I wrote about the reactions to the immediate to work mandate impacting two million federal workers in the United States. Return to work mandates have, hands down, created the great divide between employers and employees. But the recent Alberta case of Nickles v. 628810 Alberta Ltd. provides a common sense analysis to the legality around requests for employees to return to the office. Margaret Nickles was the office manager of a vein clinic for 37 years. She predominately worked from home for the entirety of her employment. Nickles did come into the office on occasion and when needed but usually at her own discretion. CHAUDHRI: Are you being quiet-fired? CHAUDHRI: Recruitment to new job can mean higher damages in court CHAUDHRI: Time for Canadian businesses to make a turn around There was a change in ownership and the new owner rolled out a mandate to 'return' employees to work in the office. Nickles objected as she always worked remotely. Her role was never 'in office.' In response her employer gave her a three-month notice of the change but insisted she must, after the three months, come in to work in office. When Nickles refused to agree, the employer further revised its offer suggesting she could work two-and-a-half days in the office per week. But the employer reserved the right to alter the days in office to full-time at some later point. Again, Nickles refused to agree and she sued her employer for constructive dismissal. She brought an application for summary judgment to resolve her case. In court, Justice Farrington noted the distinction between Nickles' employment scenario and that of a COVID working arrangement by finding, 'The COVID return-to-work template does not fit this paradigm. This was an arrangement where the work was always from home.' The judge went on to find that the work-from-home arrangement was an integral part of Nickles employment contract and she was entitled to reasonable notice of the change to that term. On that point, Justice Farrington found, 'The notice given was less than three months for a 37 year employee. I am satisfied that there was a constructive dismissal.' While the court didn't have enough evidence to determine what Nickles damages are, one can rest assured that they will be substantial given her 37 years of tenure. The take away from this case is that any employee that commenced a position by working remotely (and not in response to COVID), can reasonably argue that the remote element of the job is integral to the employment contract. This means true remote employees can resist sweeping return-to-work mandates or hybrid models. However, if you principally worked in person and were permitted for a period of time to work remotely due to COVID, the court may not see it the same way and view a return-to-work mandate as being a reasonable step for an employer to take. Either way, an employer should provide reasonable notice of a return-to-work mandate. For a 37 year employee like Nickles, three months simply did not fit the bill. Have a workplace problem? Maybe I can help! Email me at and your question may be featured in a future column. The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.
