364 replies to this topic

[Coopershawk]

One thing all you Sherlocks have overlooked ...she lives and works in Sidney where house prices are a bit less than Victoria. I don't know all the specifics, but what if she was married, then divorced, and the house was hers as part of the settlement. Now that she is potentially losing her job, she can't maintain the upkeep of her home. Does that fill in some gaps? Still not fair for a 60 year old cashier who worked at Safeway for many years and now SOF is bumping her.

[LJ]

Why would she be losing her job. Buyouts are usually a choice, not mandatory.

[Mike K.]

She's been given a choice. I still don't see what the problem is here.

 

If I were her I'd take the buy-out and find a job as a cashier elsewhere unless the buyout is drastically below what I would be earning between the age of 60 and 65-67.

[KAS]

If you've been a cashier for many years, you've built up seniority and, more than likely, probably only work the shifts you want to - say Monday to Friday, 8 to 4. Sure, she could get a job, but she would lose the seniority, and have to start working the crappy shifts.

As we're all engaged in conjecture here, I would guess that her other choice, if she does not accept the buy out and she chooses to stay, is a voluntary demotion to bring her rate of pay/benefits in line with what SoF normally pays.

I also think you're overestimating the willingness of an employer to hire a woman in her sixties. I work with seniors, and I regularly hear that they are the last choice when it comes to hiring in the service industry.

And, when you are not in management, and you're presented with a change in process or procedure, aspects of you job description, or a buyout offer, you do not feel like you have any agency or choice. The expectations placed on you by your boss, and yourself, is to do what you're told.

[Coopershawk]

Excellent points KAS!

[bluefox]

Agreed. It's not like there are a ton of good-paying jobs floating around in Greater Victoria. This cashier gets that.

[Mike K.]

But everything else is conjecture too. We don't know anything about this situation other than she was offered a buy out that she felt wasn't enough to last her into retirement age.

That's all we know. To suggest SOF wouldn't maintain her current salary or demote her is conjecture as well. And for all we know the buy out may be very reasonable and very fair but "she" doesn't think so. Heck I know millionaires who turn red when the utility bill comes in and claim they can't afford it.

[spanky123]

Contrary to popular belief, BC labour laws do not allow one company to buy another and then change existing employment agreements. The new company inherits the terms and conditions of the existing agreements and must continue to honour them.

If a company tries to terminate or change an agreement then they must provide notice or ask for a voluntary change (like it sounds SOF is doing here).

[Mike K.]

When you say provide notice, what does that entail exactly?

[spanky123]

When you say provide notice, what does that entail exactly?

 

It means that you have to treat people in an acquisition the same as you would normally. If you want to let them go then you need to give them notice or pay in lieu of notice per BC employment standards. Generally that means a minimum of a week's notice / pay for every year of service.

[lanforod]

Are you allowed to layoff and then rehire for the same position at lower pay?

[spanky123]

Are you allowed to layoff and then rehire for the same position at lower pay?

 

When you lay someone off you can do it for a maximum of 13 weeks (if I recall). After that you either need to bring them back at their full pay / position or give them notice. If you try to cut someone's pay or position then they can argue that they have been constructively dismissed by the employer.

 

Bottom line is that there is no way for an employer to try and circumvent the system to try and get rid of employees without providing notice.

[Matt R.]

13 weeks, yes. I have seen employers do the old constructive dismissal routine before ("oh hey you only have one shift every two weeks from now on") and it's bad form. Just bites you in the ass.

I leaned a long time ago just to pay them out and move on.

Matt.

[concorde]

Contrary to popular belief, BC labour laws do not allow one company to buy another and then change existing employment agreements. The new company inherits the terms and conditions of the existing agreements and must continue to honour them.

If a company tries to terminate or change an agreement then they must provide notice or ask for a voluntary change (like it sounds SOF is doing here).

That is correct, however, Save on Foods did not buy Safeway Canada.  Sobeys purchased Safeway Canada, but then sold the location to Save on Foods.  Its much like Target taking over Zellers, they bought locations and not the company.  Employees were out of luck and could apply with zero seniority and base wages at Target

 

I suspect the exact same thing happened as very few former Safeway employees work in Save on.

[Coreyburger]

That is correct, however, Save on Foods did not buy Safeway Canada.  Sobeys purchased Safeway Canada, but then sold the location to Save on Foods.  Its much like Target taking over Zellers, they bought locations and not the company.  Employees were out of luck and could apply with zero seniority and base wages at Target

 

I suspect the exact same thing happened as very few former Safeway employees work in Save on.

 

Incorrect. A unionized friend of mine who works for Safeway's was transferred to Save On with their whole bargaining unit.

[concorde]

^fair enough, Safeway and Save On are in the same union.  what doesn't make sense is that there is very few people from the Fort and Foul Bay Safeway that continued on with Save On and as I recall other people on the forum have noted the same thing

[bluefox]

Incorrect. A unionized friend of mine who works for Safeway's was transferred to Save On with their whole bargaining unit.

 

Yes, this is correct. The vast majority of Zellers employees were not unionized, and about 120 out of 135 Zellers stores in total did not have a union presence. So that was a different story. It also helped facilitate the type of deal (leasehold acquisition) that Target reached with HBC.

[concorde]

^that is true, but the union locations of Zellers lost their bid to have Target recognized as the successor in those locations with the Labour Relations Board

 

All I am saying is very few of the former Safeway employees are still at Save On in the Fort + Foul Bay location so I find it hard to believe that everyone got offered new jobs at Save On with the same wages and benefits, etc.  If that was the case then there should be very little personnel changes.  Why would people leave then?  Do they not like the color of their new uniforms?

[G-Man]

Also Target closed the Zellers for upgrades for many months. While the transition from Safeway to Save-on was 24 hours.

[HB]

I thought that there were no more Safeway stores in BC but saw 2 today on my road trip . One in 100 mile house and another in Quesnel