J. Knight

The plaintiffs, two portfolio managers, sued their former employer, an investment firm, claiming entitlement to $1.38 million in performance fees earned by the fund they managed.

The plaintiffs argued their employment agreements implicitly included these fees based on industry standards, or alternatively, that they were entitled to them under quantum meruit or an oral agreement.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the employment agreements unambiguously excluded performance fees, which were instead governed by a separate arrangement with a senior portfolio manager.

The court also rejected the quantum meruit claim as the plaintiffs were fully compensated under their contracts, and found the oral agreement was conditional on improved behaviour that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate.

A late claim for discretionary bonuses was also dismissed as it was not properly pleaded.

The applicants brought applications for a declaration of a related employer or a sale of business under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the hearing, the applicants withdrew the application against one party and sought to add another.

The Board ordered a non-appearing responding party to produce extensive documents related to construction work and set a schedule for further document production and the addition of parties.

The grievor was reinstated with back pay after a wrongful dismissal, receiving four years of income in a single lump sum.

This resulted in a significantly higher tax burden than if the income had been earned over the four years.

The union sought additional compensation to cover this extra tax, plus a 'gross up' to account for the tax payable on the additional compensation itself.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the claim, applying the 'make whole' principle of contract damages.

The Board held that the increased tax burden was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employer's breach and ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for the tax differential, grossed up.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer breached the statutory freeze provisions of the Labour Relations Act by discharging the grievor without just cause.

The grievor, a clerical employee with eight years of unblemished service, was discharged after claiming a safety boot subsidy for boots purchased for her husband and son.

The Board found that while the grievor's conduct was improper, the employer failed to apply its established policy of progressive discipline and had treated similar cases much more leniently in the past.

The Board concluded that the discharge was unjust and ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation, subject to a deduction equivalent to a three-day suspension.