Compensation Upon Firing For Farang?

[donna]

my contract stated that if either party wishes to terminate the contract that 30 days notice is required. the hotel did not abide by this.

[Bredbury Blue]

First, wouldn’t this topic be better moved in the visa forum with all the others of a similar ilk – including mine (search the visa forum for “Bredbury”)?

Second, I agree that if someone has the time, it would be a good idea to permanently post something related to the labour laws and termination, as it’s a topic that features often.

Third, thanks to who ever posted the link to the labour laws (5MB). Section 9 is interesting, and something I wasn’t aware of, as it refers to the employer paying to the employee interest at 15% annum during the default period (i.e. the period the employer doesn’t stump up monies owing). Well worth downloading!

I’m currently in the early days of a dispute with my company (American) who claim that their severance policy (of their Texas office) governs the upcoming retrenchment of my +1 year of employent, not Thai laws. I have challenged them on this and I’m currently waiting for their response to see what I have to do next. To get the confidence to challenge them, I first checked with four expat lawyer colleagues working in Thailand (a couple of partners in amongst them), and their Thai associates. Three replied, here are their edited responses, which may be of interest to others:

Lawyer 1: If you work in Thailand, with a work permit, for a company formally registered here, and are suing in Thai civil or labour court, the company cannot, no matter what contractual documents it may have, avoid Thai labour law, which absolutely applies. You will be entitled to a minimum severance pay based on the length of service at the time you finish up. One more point - generally, when the public interest is involved the law is mandatory - in this case, the public interest is in making sure workers are not out in the street starving. Remember there is no dole here - the state has given this burden to employers.

Lawyer 2: You are entitled to 3 months' basic salary as severance pay. If your employer proves intransigent, you may consider a claim in the Central Labour Court. If nothing else, you should at least discuss the matter with the officers there. The Labour Court in Thailand is helpful and very employee-friendly. They have staff who can help and advise you (no charge) and, if you decide to proceed, there will be minimal cost and no subsequent financial penalty if you decide to drop the case later. The Central Labour Court is at 404 Rama 4 Road and its website, all in Thai, is at http://www.centrallabourcourt.org/index_home.asp. The arbitration clause in your contract should not be effective to prevent you from bringing a Labour Court claim.

Lawyer 3: The short answer to this question is that if an individual has been working in Thailand with valid papers i.e. work permit, tax card social insurance then he will generally have a Thai Contract of Employment. That CoE would be subject to review by the Labour Courts under Thai Law. The basic entitlements are set out on labour office and other websites but my understanding is they amount to 3 months "pay" for between 1 and 3 years service. Pay is calculated not just by cash but includes monetary value of car or luncheon vouchers for example. There is also a preferential tax deduction available as only 50% of termination payments are taken into account for tax purposes (if you fill the forms in correctly). In practice the labour courts of Thailand have a system of mediation allowing (and requiring) the parties to come up with their own solution during hearings held over many months. Thai courts take a dim view of foreign companies treating foreign nationals badly in Thailand. The Courts are generally seen as pro worker. There are many Thai attorneys who can make a claim.

Does anybody have any knowledge, which will confirm the comments:

1. “Pay is calculated not just by cash but includes monetary value of car or luncheon vouchers for example. (I assume he means its not just something stated as ‘base salary’ or similar in your contract, but includes accommodation allowance, transport allowance, company phone, etc)

2. There is also a preferential tax deduction available as only 50% of termination payments are taken into account for tax purposes (if you fill the forms in correctly).”

I’ve posted my comments here, rather within my similar topic in the visa forum, as this one seems to have got more interest – I’m happy to go with that if it helps Donna, myself and others.

[bendix]

On the first point, that makes sense Bredbury Blue. My understanding is that it's based on total benefits, not just salary.

On the second one, that's interesting. I didnt know that. Very useful. It rings true to me, but I'll see if i can confirm that.

[donna]

i will sit down soon and take the relevant parts of this thread and make a sticky. bear with me please.

i am sure that it will be invaluable to many members.

[onethailand]

Great post, Bredbury.

The 15% interest per annum is interesting information. Furthermore, Chapter 12 (Sections 123-125) allow you to file a claim, which will be decided within 60-90 days with a maximum appeal period of 30 days. If you file the complaint and win, the employer must pay up within 15 days.

I have no knowledge of the points you've raised, though I would be interested in hearing the answers as well.

[Bredbury Blue]

1. The Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) controls employment in the Kingdom of Thailand.

2. Foreigners who intend to work in Thailand are subject to the Alien Employment Act B.E. 2521 (A.D. 1978).

What ties 2 to 1? There must be something in one of them that refers to 1 expressly applying to Foreigners working in thailand, but what is it?

Think we all know that Foreigners working here need a work permit, etc, and therefore 1 does apply to them. But i have an employer being difficult in a claim against them so what can i show that proves categorically that my employment IS governed by Thai Labour laws and in particular 1 and 2.

Can any lawyer or Subbelt reading can advise?

[samran]

bedbury, did you see Gernimos post (post 21)?

[Bredbury Blue]

bedbury, did you see Gernimos post (post 21)?

Yes i did thanks, and others similar on this website. However, i've had advice from several people, including lawyer colleagues (see my post this page) which says that foreigners are covered by The Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) but nobody has explained to me why - is it because its for workers and does not expressly exclude foreigners?

My company is being difficult, i would prefer to give them some indisputable document / text which proves that foreigners working in thailand are covered by that Act rahter than end up in the labour court but all i have at the moment are generalisms.

[samran]

bedbury, did you see Gernimos post (post 21)?

Yes i did thanks, and others similar on this website. However, i've had advice from several people, including lawyer colleagues (see my post this page) which says that foreigners are covered by The Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) but nobody has explained to me why - is it because its for workers and does not expressly exclude foreigners?

My company is being difficult, i would prefer to give them some indisputable document / text which proves that foreigners working in thailand are covered by that Act rahter than end up in the labour court but all i have at the moment are generalisms.

While I am taking in generalisms, I think you'll find that most Thai law does not specifically exclude forigners from its application. So with that, you very much appear to have a strong case if your work is doing something illegal as per the act.

[onethailand]

1. The Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) controls employment in the Kingdom of Thailand.

2. Foreigners who intend to work in Thailand are subject to the Alien Employment Act B.E. 2521 (A.D. 1978).

What ties 2 to 1? There must be something in one of them that refers to 1 expressly applying to Foreigners working in thailand, but what is it?

The Alien Employment Act specifies what types of employment are not permitted for aliens.

http://eng.mol.go.th/law_labour.html#h1

The Labour Protection Act covers all workers in Thailand regardless of their nationality. We farangs are subject to both Acts, while Thais are only subject to the Labour Protection Act.

[Netfan]

If only this thread had come up 2 months ago. or maybe i should say if only i had started this thread 2 months ago. i just went thru this with my employer- after 6 years of one year "roll over" contracts i and several other foreigners were given letters 30 days prior to the renewal date saying "thanks, but you're no longer needed, your contract wont be re-newed". We invesigated and found out everything thats been said here is true. However, apparently so did the company so they ended up giving us all new contracts, saying the original letters were "a mistake". I would have gone to the Labor Board but was a bit leary of getting a fair shake, and took the new one year contract. Since then I have found out we would have won. One other thing that hasnt been mentioned- once the company gives you the termination notice, they cannot come back with any reason not given in the notice as to why you were let go. For example they cannot suddenly turn up at the Labor Board and say you were a bad employee or had a bad attitude if the termination notice doesnt say so.

[onethailand]

One other thing that hasnt been mentioned- once the company gives you the termination notice, they cannot come back with any reason not given in the notice as to why you were let go. For example they cannot suddenly turn up at the Labor Board and say you were a bad employee or had a bad attitude if the termination notice doesnt say so.

Correct - good point.

Curious why a company would "no longer need" workers then suddenly hire them back again... no matter what they do they will have to deal with the situation sooner or later... if they really no longer needed you why not just pay the correct compensation and get it over with? Or are they planning to give you a full 3 months' notice this year in order to save 3 months' severance?

[donna]

just an update to my situation. i went to see my lawyer today who has armed me with all the relevant paperwork to take to the labour court in phuket. i will deliver the docs, set a date for the hearing and hopefully all will be well.

i have heard that if the employer does not show up the first time they can reschedule but if they do not show up the second time, that the court decides on the amount and orders the employer to pay up pronto. is that correct?

[Netfan]

Curious why a company would "no longer need" workers then suddenly hire them back again... no matter what they do they will have to deal with the situation sooner or later... if they really no longer needed you why not just pay the correct compensation and get it over with? Or are they planning to give you a full 3 months' notice this year in order to save 3 months' severance?

Good question. One that I'm sure we'll learn the lanswers to next year. We think what will happen is they will come up with some "reasons" why the contracts should not be renewed next year. But we still have those original termination letters in hand. They will be useful. Which is another thing I learned- get and keep everything in writing!

[onethailand]

just an update to my situation. i went to see my lawyer today who has armed me with all the relevant paperwork to take to the labour court in phuket. i will deliver the docs, set a date for the hearing and hopefully all will be well.

i have heard that if the employer does not show up the first time they can reschedule but if they do not show up the second time, that the court decides on the amount and orders the employer to pay up pronto. is that correct?

Once filed in court there is a maximum 90 day period for the issue to be decided. Once decided both parties have maximum 30 days to file an appeal, and if the employer appeals he must deposit the entire amount in question with the court in order to file an appeal.

Once the decision is final, the employer has 15 days to pay up.

I would presume that most cases are decided within 60 days, this is perhaps why you have the explanation you got.

Netfan, I meant 3 months' pay in lieu of notice.. LOL.. severance will be based on the time served. I think Donna posted a chart on the first page of this thread somewhere...

[Bredbury Blue]

On the first point, that makes sense Bredbury Blue. My understanding is that it's based on total benefits, not just salary.

"it's based on total benefits, not just salary". Can anybody confirm yes or no, and if yes, where it states such in the Labour Law (which section)?

[buddhafly]

here's another question...

Does the nature of the reason for firing affect whether or not you get severence?

i.e. what if an employer didn't want to pay, could they just say that the employee didnt do his duties?

or what idf there are financial problems at the company?

[LivinLOS]

Not trying to be against you here merely provide devils advocate..

my contract stated that if either party wishes to terminate the contract that 30 days notice is required. the hotel did not abide by this.

Surely that would be 'termination in advance of the expiry' of the contract. If the contract expires thats the end of it no ?? Its not terminating the contract, as the contract is fixed term ?? It would be an (incorrect) assumption that a new contract would be offered ??

Secondly I am assuming from your posts you worked (slightly) longer than one year ?? As I keep seeing references from posters describing the labour law as being applicable to give severance for contracts / employment of MORE THAN one year. I am curious how this would apply in a fixed term contract that runs for <=365 days. Eg a 1st July to 31st June type affair. In this case I could see that A) there would be no notification of termination required as they could allow the contract merely to expire without terminating it and B ) you would not have worked for a period of MORE THAN one year.

Good luck with it.. Interesting thread.

[Bredbury Blue]

Not trying to be against you here merely provide devils advocate..

my contract stated that if either party wishes to terminate the contract that 30 days notice is required. the hotel did not abide by this.

Surely that would be 'termination in advance of the expiry' of the contract. If the contract expires thats the end of it no ?? Its not terminating the contract, as the contract is fixed term ?? It would be an (incorrect) assumption that a new contract would be offered ??

sorry but i didn't quite understand your point, however my reading of "if either party wishes to terminate the contract that 30 days notice is required" is that it is of a non-specific duration and can only be terminated by a party giving 30 days notice to the other party.

[bendix]

here's another question...

Does the nature of the reason for firing affect whether or not you get severence?

i.e. what if an employer didn't want to pay, could they just say that the employee didnt do his duties?

or what idf there are financial problems at the company?

The Labour Protection Act outlines specific circumstances for what it thinks are justifiable reasons for terminating employment - in these cases the employee is NOT entitled to severance.

They are pretty extreme and unlikely to affect 99% of cases. I can't remember them all off the top of my head, but they are listed in the Act which I pasted a link to earlier in this thread. They include things like gross misconduct (theft etc), criminal conviction, being away for more than three days with no contact to the employer etc.

The employer claiming the employee simply didnt do his duties is not grounds for severance; frankly that is the employer's problem.

As already mentioned here many times, the law is firmly on the side of the employee in Thailand.

[donna]

the law also states that if the work being done is related to the every day running of the business then the contract is not a 'fixed term' contract and it is assumed that the contract will be renewed. so by the employer not giving me any notice, they have broken their end of the agreement. ''

if, for examle, i was employed to do the 'pre-opening' work for a hotel for a 1 year period, and in that time the hotel opened, then they are not under any obligation to renew my contract as it does fall under the fixed term area.

clear as mud?

[onethailand]

the law also states that if the work being done is related to the every day running of the business then the contract is not a 'fixed term' contract and it is assumed that the contract will be renewed. so by the employer not giving me any notice, they have broken their end of the agreement. ''

I'm not sure why you continue to repeat this even though it has been shown to you that this is not the case.

If you can show that clearly in the LPA then fine - but I know you won't find it. The every day running of the business is entirely irrelevant to what constitutes a fixed-term contract or not. The only reason you are eligible for severance is because you have served more than six months.

Check with your lawyer - if he is the one that told you that "every day running" = "non fixed-term contract" then I suggest you find another lawyer who has a better grasp of the language.

[bendix]

the law also states that if the work being done is related to the every day running of the business then the contract is not a 'fixed term' contract and it is assumed that the contract will be renewed. so by the employer not giving me any notice, they have broken their end of the agreement. ''

I'm not sure why you continue to repeat this even though it has been shown to you that this is not the case.

If you can show that clearly in the LPA then fine - but I know you won't find it. The every day running of the business is entirely irrelevant to what constitutes a fixed-term contract or not. The only reason you are eligible for severance is because you have served more than six months.

Check with your lawyer - if he is the one that told you that "every day running" = "non fixed-term contract" then I suggest you find another lawyer who has a better grasp of the language.

It's not as simple as that onethailand. Irregardless of whether you are on a fixed term contract or not, you are eligible for severance, EXCEPT in a few special cicumstances where the fixed term contract was for a specific purpose, eg a special project which isnt part of the company's normal business or seasonal work. The reason is clear. Increasingly, employers have hid behind fixed term contracts in the hope of avoiding what seem to be draconian severance arrangements, but time and time again - and universally - the Labour Courts side with employee on this.

Donna's lawyer is right.

I think, onethailand, you are applying western thinking to something in Thailand. A fixed term contract is - bizarrely - not a fixed term contract in Thailand, at least as we know it.

[onethailand]

the law also states that if the work being done is related to the every day running of the business then the contract is not a 'fixed term' contract and it is assumed that the contract will be renewed. so by the employer not giving me any notice, they have broken their end of the agreement. ''

I'm not sure why you continue to repeat this even though it has been shown to you that this is not the case.

If you can show that clearly in the LPA then fine - but I know you won't find it. The every day running of the business is entirely irrelevant to what constitutes a fixed-term contract or not. The only reason you are eligible for severance is because you have served more than six months.

Check with your lawyer - if he is the one that told you that "every day running" = "non fixed-term contract" then I suggest you find another lawyer who has a better grasp of the language.

It's not as simple as that onethailand. Irregardless of whether you are on a fixed term contract or not, you are eligible for severance, EXCEPT in a few special cicumstances where the fixed term contract was for a specific purpose, eg a special project which isnt part of the company's normal business or seasonal work. The reason is clear. Increasingly, employers have hid behind fixed term contracts in the hope of avoiding what seem to be draconian severance arrangements, but time and time again - and universally - the Labour Courts side with employee on this.

Donna's lawyer is right.

I think, onethailand, you are applying western thinking to something in Thailand. A fixed term contract is - bizarrely - not a fixed term contract in Thailand, at least as we know it.

Eligible for severance, yes. This we already agreed.

What Donna is saying, however, is that if you are working in the normal business of the company, you are not on a fixed-term contract. This is wrong.

What the LPA says is that "only a fixed-term contract *not* in the normal business of the company" can be excluded from severance. The LPA defines a fixed-term contract as one with a definite period - that's it. A one-year contract can be considered to have a definite period of 365 days.

If the lawyer is saying that a fixed-term contract can only be one for special business, he is wrong. However, Donna did not say that the lawyer said that. I said that "if" the lawyer said that then she should consider getting a new lawyer.

Keep in mind that once you hit the 120 days, as I pointed out earlier (fixed-term only applies to Section 118 Paragraph 1, which defines persons employed for up to 120 days) "fixed-term" is irrelevant as we have discovered. To try and make a claim that Donna was employed in "normal business" is thus also irrelevant. If the lawyer is basing his case on this point he is making a mistake, pure and simple.

Or at least, that's my opinion - better she should get a second qualified opinion from a lawyer.

edit -> Well, I correct myself again. I should stop doing this in the wee hours - however, the basic fact doesn't change. Paragraph 1 is for 120 days but less than a year. Paragraph 2 is for a year or longer. As Donna's contract is for a year, she qualifies under Paragraph 2.

Anyhow, Section 17 says that "a Contract of Employment shall expire upon the completion of the period specified in the Contract of Employment without the need to give advance notice." That, to me, is fixed-term - I do not see how it can be called anything other than that.

Anyhow, this is undoubtedly what the company is going to claim. Donna, in turn, can claim that she was employed for one year and thus for the purposes of severance qualifies under Paragraph 2 of Section 118.

Not only that, because they let her go without notice and did not terminate her for some "unusual" reason, she can be considered to have completed the year.

If for some reason her employment period is considered to be less than a year - then she can fall back on the "normal business" claim.

[johnjameshogg]

thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.

recently i was told that my contract was up and it would not be renewed. i was not required to come to work the following day, that was it. all over red rover. the reason i was given was that the company did not want to pay a foreigner to do the work i was doing.

in the time i had been working there, i had increased rooms revenue by 24% in the first 5 months of this year, had never stuffed anything up in a major way, and had good relationships with all staff there.

anyway, after checking with 2 separate lawyers, i was told that i was owed a minimum of 1 month in lieu of notice, and 1 month severance. i then went to another lawyer in bkk and was told that i was, in fact, owed 1 month in lieu of notice and 3 months severance, as well as service charge for those months (i worked in the hotel industry). (initially i got my dates wrong, thats the reason for the error)

the hotel i was working for are arguing that my contract was for one year (it was not a 'special project' and was part of the every day running of the hotel) and as it was a fixed term, then i am entitled to nothing. it is clearly stated in the contract that if either party chooses to terminate the contract, that 30 days notice would be given. this was never given, so i assumed that the contract would be continued.

anyway, the lawyer has sent some docs to the hotel and i am waiting on their response.

i do not want to screw the hotel and i do not feel bitter towards anyone there. i just want what i am legally entitled to. below is some info i found on thai labour law which is pretty straight forward:

Termination and Severance

An employee normally must be given notice of termination at least one pay period or one month in advance of termination, whichever is shorter. This notice period does not apply to employees being terminated for cause.

"Cause" includes:

1. dishonest performance of duties or an intentional criminal offense against the employer;

2. intentionally causing harm to the employer;

3. violating work rules or orders of the employer for which a written warning has previously been issued to the employee (serious violations might not require a warning);

4. neglecting the employee's duties for three consecutive working days without justifiable cause;

5. gross negligence causing serious harm to the employer;

6. being sentenced to imprisonment.

Except in cases in which the termination is "for cause" as described immediately above, a full-time employee who is terminated by an employer must be paid severance pay as follows:

Period of Employment Amount of Severance Pay

More than 120 days but less than 1 year 30 days wages or salary

At least 1 year but less than 3 years 90 days wages or salary

At least 3 years but less than 6 years 180 days wages or salary

At least 6 years but less than 10 years 240 days wages or salary

At least 10 years 300 days wages or salary

Employees for a fixed duration do not qualify for severance. Under the Labor Protection Act, such employees must have a written contract of not more than two years duration. Work qualifying for such a contract must be a special project not in the normal course of the employer's business, or must be for temporary or seasonal employment.

Donna,

after chatting with you yesterday about your situation, I go to work and low and behold, I get the talk from my employer giving me one months notice terminating my employment.

The thing is the reason given was that June and July this year have not been as busy as expected, so therefor cutbacks are needed (ie. me..) I have only been there 8 months but it seems to me that my employer should not have taken me on, had he not thought the business could sustain my salary through out the whole year. Incidently, they have had an expat chef since opening some 5 years ago and looking at the revenue for this year and the past five years, we have taken more this year so far than in the past. It seems that an employer can mess about with an employees future, plans and career without any feelings of guilt.

One months notice after eight months of loyal service does not ring fair to me, especially when you consider I now have to look for another job,which is difficult enough in Thailand as they are few and far between, but to have an eight month stint in an establishment on your resume, brings up many doubtful questions from a prospective employer.

Unfortunately as far as Thai labour law goes, this will not be seen as unfairly dismissed, although I certainly feel I have been

[LivinLOS]

Not trying to be against you here merely provide devils advocate..

my contract stated that if either party wishes to terminate the contract that 30 days notice is required. the hotel did not abide by this.

Surely that would be 'termination in advance of the expiry' of the contract. If the contract expires thats the end of it no ?? Its not terminating the contract, as the contract is fixed term ?? It would be an (incorrect) assumption that a new contract would be offered ??

sorry but i didn't quite understand your point, however my reading of "if either party wishes to terminate the contract that 30 days notice is required" is that it is of a non-specific duration and can only be terminated by a party giving 30 days notice to the other party.

My point would be that a contract offered for 365 days would be just that.. at the end of it there would be no guarantee that it would roll over and no notice would be needed to inform you that you dont have work on the 366th day.. The contract would now be complete (and may indeed require some severance based on 1 year) but no 1 month notice would be needed.

if you want the employment to terminate at day 364 or day 300 or any other period in the duration of the contract then notice would of course be required.

[LivinLOS]

edit -> Well, I correct myself again. I should stop doing this in the wee hours - however, the basic fact doesn't change. Paragraph 1 is for 120 days but less than a year. Paragraph 2 is for a year or longer. As Donna's contract is for a year, she qualifies under Paragraph 2.

Thanks that clearly answers my Q about if it was for a year or more or a year or less.. Other people were stating 'more than' 1 year and and it sounded like a year or less..

Just my 2c would be that it sounds to me that she is entitled to her severance pay for working the full year, I dont see how your entitled to one months notice when a contract ends. Effectively I see that as 12 months notice the contract will end on a set period and I dont see how assumptions of a roll over, or how 'performing usual duties' type arguments create a guaranteed 'rolling' contract going forward that would require notice. I mean it seems pretty specific in a Contract of Employment shall expire upon the completion of the period specified in the Contract of Employment without the need to give advance notice.

Basically you signed on for a year, you worked your year. at the end your entitled to the severance that the year built up.

[johnjameshogg]

I have a question too.

What if a farang was shown the door from his employer but the farang did not have a contract with them ?

Would he be still liable for severance compensation ?

No contract - no job, right? And to confirm that you were actually working w/o contract means you've been working illegally, hence claiming your compensation is aknowledgement of the crime against present labor law.

So to speak, say thank you and hit the door. next time get a written contract.

Hey bendix, what is this riddle :

>>work in management for an international law firm, but I'm not a lawyer.

hm... HR ? PR ? HZ ?

makes me curious

Hi,

I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

I have recently been informed by my employer that my employment has been terminated. Every thing is above board, I was there less than a full year and I have been given one months notice that my employment will end.My friend has informed me that I am entitled to termination pay of one month also on top of my final months salay.

Is this true, is it the law?

[Douggie Style]

....deleted for clarity....

One thing I am not sure of is the tax situation of severance. In Australia, for example, it's tax-free. I'm not sure what the deal is here.

A good topic and useful post.

Small point, I think in Australia, severance pay is concessionally taxed as an ETP

[of course, speaking generally you are only required to pay Australian tax if you fall within the residency or source of income requirements.... which would be another topic altogether]

[Douggie Style]

edit -> Well, I correct myself again. I should stop doing this in the wee hours - however, the basic fact doesn't change. Paragraph 1 is for 120 days but less than a year. Paragraph 2 is for a year or longer. As Donna's contract is for a year, she qualifies under Paragraph 2.

Thanks that clearly answers my Q about if it was for a year or more or a year or less.. Other people were stating 'more than' 1 year and and it sounded like a year or less..

Just my 2c would be that it sounds to me that she is entitled to her severance pay for working the full year, I dont see how your entitled to one months notice when a contract ends. Effectively I see that as 12 months notice the contract will end on a set period and I dont see how assumptions of a roll over, or how 'performing usual duties' type arguments create a guaranteed 'rolling' contract going forward that would require notice. I mean it seems pretty specific in a Contract of Employment shall expire upon the completion of the period specified in the Contract of Employment without the need to give advance notice.

Basically you signed on for a year, you worked your year. at the end your entitled to the severance that the year built up.

Hi, look I am not across the topic, so forgive me if this is off the point, but the issue of having a continuing or rolling contract [and therefore entitled to the severance pay] or not seems to keep coming up.

If I read it correctly Bendix seems to be saying this is fairly irrelevant as the courts will read any statutes down to favour the employee whereas other posters are being much more technical.

Is it not open to the court to deem a continuing contract based on the facts? especially if it appears short contracts are used as a sham to subvert the intent of the legislation which is apparently very pro worker. [am I missing the point!]