Turnbull v. Juniper Networks Inc., 2002 Carswell BC 2747 (B.C.S.C.)
Stuart Turnbull and Stephen Lloyd sued for wrongful dismissal. They were both highly skilled workers in the telecommunications industry. Each of them had been recruited by Juniper from major competitors in the industry.
Turnbull, a 40-year-old senior account manager, accepted a base salary of $141,000 with potential commissions of $215,000. Lloyd, a systems engineer, accepted a base salary of $152,700 with potential commissions of $67,400. Both men signed employment agreements with Juniper in June 2000. On June 15, 2001, Turnbull and Lloyd were both dismissed without cause and paid two months’ salary in lieu of notice.
Turnbull and Lloyd argued that in assessing the proper amount of notice the court should take into consideration the fact both had been induced to join Juniper and each left employment with industry competitors who recognized their abilities. In response Juniper claimed both plaintiffs knew that, according to their offer of employment, their tenure was neither long-term nor secure and could be terminated by either party.
Juniper asked the court to recognize that the collapse of the telecommunications industry was widespread and had also affected both Lloyd and Turnbull’s previous employers.
The judge found that considering all of the factors, including length of time employed, Lloyd and Turnbull’s specialized skills, the inducements offered by Juniper, the fact both men recognized there was no expectation of secure or long-term employment and the collapse of the telecommunications industry, that the proper notice period owed to each plaintiff was six months.
Lloyd received $97,924 in wages and commissions for the six-month period plus a small amount representing his RRSP contribution. Turnbull received $109,307 for the same period in addition to also receiving a small RRSP contribution.
Stuart Turnbull and Stephen Lloyd sued for wrongful dismissal. They were both highly skilled workers in the telecommunications industry. Each of them had been recruited by Juniper from major competitors in the industry.
Turnbull, a 40-year-old senior account manager, accepted a base salary of $141,000 with potential commissions of $215,000. Lloyd, a systems engineer, accepted a base salary of $152,700 with potential commissions of $67,400. Both men signed employment agreements with Juniper in June 2000. On June 15, 2001, Turnbull and Lloyd were both dismissed without cause and paid two months’ salary in lieu of notice.
Turnbull and Lloyd argued that in assessing the proper amount of notice the court should take into consideration the fact both had been induced to join Juniper and each left employment with industry competitors who recognized their abilities. In response Juniper claimed both plaintiffs knew that, according to their offer of employment, their tenure was neither long-term nor secure and could be terminated by either party.
Juniper asked the court to recognize that the collapse of the telecommunications industry was widespread and had also affected both Lloyd and Turnbull’s previous employers.
The judge found that considering all of the factors, including length of time employed, Lloyd and Turnbull’s specialized skills, the inducements offered by Juniper, the fact both men recognized there was no expectation of secure or long-term employment and the collapse of the telecommunications industry, that the proper notice period owed to each plaintiff was six months.
Lloyd received $97,924 in wages and commissions for the six-month period plus a small amount representing his RRSP contribution. Turnbull received $109,307 for the same period in addition to also receiving a small RRSP contribution.
