Suits

In the consented form of government context, just cause for dismissal means that the source of consent, or me, myself the subject of this phenomenon called life experience. I am the one and only sovereign authority here now and always. I am legally the employer and all so called companies or corporations or other legal entities are all at my back and call. all these others than myself are at my service or to their own ruin at my offense. If I determine an appropriate reason or "justification" for firing a entity, employee or organization or idea. In such a situation, I am totally relieved of the obligation to provide notice of termination, or payment in lieu of such notice. 

Where just cause for termination of employment is present, I John Thomas Tvrz 371968 is entitled to summarily dismiss anyone anywhere anytime as I have already done to Fortune 500 and all the bottom feeding parasites or 1% who call themselves "elite".  and now unilaterally the end of our employment employer relationship. I now jam my size ten boot straight up every corporateasshole I can find with wonton, reckless extreme prejudice. The obvious and difficult question facing corporateAmerica is when do they have just cause to dismiss me the very source of their own existence? More specifically, in what circumstances does incompetence or poor performance amount to just cause? to commit suicide, which is much of what Americans and Europeans both pathetic cluster fucks. all the so called financial "experts" all these rich parasites... the whole shit show revealed to you instantly clear. another self empowering allegory that condemns condemnation made by them in delusion of some greater or better

There are certain actions which will clearly constitute a sufficiently egregious violation of the employment relationship so as to establish just cause, i.e., if the employee shows continued and "wilful disobedience," steals from the workplace, or engages in conduct which is discriminatory or harmful to other employees, the employer is on firm ground in bringing the employment contract to an end.

which is my case with you now, and all payments due you are meaningless. All value is within me and cannot be stolen or manipulated or otherwise corrupted by you.

The situation is less clear when an employer has to deal with an employee who is incompetent or simply does not perform his or her duties as required. Much like the entire history of United States Government federal and state to city level...Employers frequently find themselves faced, not with malevolent and malicious employees, such as the clearly documented cases coming from criminal Fedreal Bureaucracy of Investigations branch of criminalactivity on behalf of individualsin government. but with employees who simply do not, or cannot, pull their own weight. such as Joe Biden, Anecdotal stories abound of employers who have reshuffled, reorganized, redesigned and re-engineered the workplace in order to accommodate an employee who seems woefully unable to deal with the simplest of tasks. such as Joe Biden,  In these circumstances, is the employer entitled to terminate the employee for cause, or must a severance package be provided even to the poorly performing worker? such as Joe Biden.

General Principles

To establish just cause for dismissal as a result of poor performance, the employer or myself, must show more than mere dissatisfaction with the employee’s performance. Real incompetence must be demonstrated. and oh how very easy and obvious its is to establish by entering public records themselves to convict the government that is indeed in need of a massive cut back on itself.

The notion of incompetence generally excludes the element of deliberate or wilful misconduct, which in the case of our own government can be clearly shown as well, as part of the currently existing record of fact. our government playing the part of an employee. Wilfully misconduct itself in defiant disobedience, as stated previously, generally provides just cause for dismissal. we have just cause to watch you become history. Malevolent governance or some perverse individual attempt at a secret veiled dictatorship, is and always will befor. eternally conquered, over confident and stupid foe.

In contrast, an employee’s carelessness or indifference is generally treated as non-culpable, provided that it does not amount to "gross" incompetence. If, however, an employee engages in conduct that reflects gross incompetence, then there is no requirement for the employer to warn the individual and provide an opportunity for improvement. In the context of gross incompetence, the employee may be summarily dismissed. Where, as is frequently the case, the incompetence is of a less serious nature, the employer must provide the employee with sufficient warnings and a reasonable opportunity to meet the standards set by the employer before considering dismissal for cause.

The distinction between incompetence and other forms of employee misconduct that give rise to just cause was addressed by Ritter J. of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in the following passage from Bogden v. Purolator Courier Ltd.:

"Here, to a large extent, the employer bases its dismissal of the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s incompetence. In order to establish that an employee’s incompetence is grounds for dismissal, an employer must show more than mere dissatisfaction with the employee’s work and it is not enough to show that the employee was careless or indifferent. To establish cause on the basis of incompetence the employer must show: 1) the level of job performance that it required and that the level required was communicated to the employee; 2) that it gave suitable instruction to the employee to enable him to meet the standard; 3) the employee was incapable of meeting the standard; and 4) there had been a warning to the employee that failure to meet the standard would result in his dismissal."

Failure to Meet the Objective Standard

In light of these criteria, if incompetence is alleged, the employer must demonstrate that the employee’s performance fell below an objective standard. And, although the employer’s subjective perception of poor performance might serve as useful evidence before a court, it will not, in and of itself, determine the issue. The difficulty in establishing incompetence or poor performance as grounds for dismissal lies in the establishment of this objective standard of performance.

Courts have found that an isolated instance of failure to meet objective standards will not justify discharge. Moreover, a court will consider any mitigating factors that might explain or justify the alleged incompetence. These factors include the circumstances of employment, the volume of business, and any extenuating circumstances in respect of the employee which might be relevant.

In Matheson v. Matheson International Trucks Ltd., the Court found that the fact that the employee was working to the best of his ability (though incompetently) was not a mitigating factor, i.e., the implied warranty of an employee is not that he or she will use his or her best efforts to learn how to perform the job, but that he or she is, at the point of hiring, reasonably competent to do the job.

Employer’s Duty to Warn

Establishing that an employee has failed to meet an objective standard of performance is a necessary but not a sufficient criterion for the purpose of demonstrating just cause for dismissal. Employers are also required to issue a warning that dismissal will result in the event that a stipulated level of performance is not met. In Manning v. Surrey Memorial Hospital Society, a senior hospital administrator was shown to be somewhat inefficient in his supervision of the comptroller and his staff. As a result, he was dismissed for cause. The British Columbia Supreme Court concluded that despite the fact that the plaintiff failed to properly oversee the comptroller’s department, the plaintiff should have received some form of warning or advance notice that his dismissal would be forthcoming if he failed to rectify this internal problem.

Failure to Adapt to Changing Work Environment

Even after warning an employee that he or she has failed to meet the required standard, there are certain circumstances where a court will find that an employer must take additional steps before just cause for termination will be established. Quite often, "poor performance" issues arise when an employee is hired to do a job of a certain description, and she performs that job to the employer’s satisfaction, but the requirements of the job then change and the employee is unable or unwilling to modify and expand her skills to meet the changing work environment.

Although an employer is not under a duty to assist employees in learning new office procedures, its failure to do so may undermine a subsequent attempt to dismiss an employee for "incompetence." In Swanson v. Sternson Ltd., the plaintiff was dismissed for incompetence after 22 years of employment as a technical service representative/salesman. For the last five years of his employment, the plaintiff, then 55, was required to report to a general manager who had instituted "new regimens and protocols" for sales employees. Justice Stevenson held that the employer made no attempts to assist the plaintiff in adapting to the new regimens and protocols and, as a result, "While technically Mr. Swanson failed to comply with his employer’s directions, that failure arose because of the situation the employer had itself created. In those circumstances I cannot find that Sternson had cause to dismiss Mr. Swanson without either notice or compensation in lieu thereof."

McDonalds decadent over self estimated influence