Well, I guess buying Coke products will be too hard on my wallet.
Full_Hunt_3087 on
Fuck PepsiCo.
And fuck Nestle while we’re at it.
RhubarbUpper on
The fact that this is a law at all is the real travesty, it’s shameful.
TopEagle4012 on
EVERYONE who reads this must do 2 things:
1) CALL Coke Canada and tell them until they make this situation right you’re going to have to terminate buying Coke products because continuing to buy them is going to be too hard on your moral sense of right and wrong.
2) PASS this to everyone you know, including the media to bring attention to how they’re treating one loyal 35-year employee is how they can treat any or all of us. The one thing they don’t want is scrutiny and attention, and that’s the one thing that they’re going to get.
Hot_Cheesecake_905 on
Very unfortunate, but I do hope he got short term disability, long term disability, and of course a nice settlement for the injury?
Apparently not…
>The company offered him a one time “gratuitous” lump sum payment of $2,511.20, “in recognition” of his 35 years of service and to support his transition away from Coke Canada Bottling.
It looks like Coke shifted responsibility to WCB Alberta, which he’ll be getting 90% income until 65. I believe I heard on an employment law show on CFRB 1010 in Toronto that WCB can impact other forms of compensation?
Camtastrophe on
$2500 and an NDA for 35 years of employment, after an injury caused by employer negligence, because anything more would be “undue hardship”.
>On its website, Coca-Cola Canada Bottling Limited describes itself as a “Proudly independent and family-owned” distributor of Coca-Cola products. It operates separately from the Coca-Cola Company.
>It employs over 6,000 people nationwide. In January, it opened a $75-million state-of-the-art, AI-enabled facility in Calgary next to the building where Hopkins worked for decades.
Don’t worry though, they’re growing with AI!
[deleted] on
[deleted]
theharps on
Very disgusting that they even offered him $2500, I hope he gets in touch with some sort of worker injury attorney. I don’t understand Albertan labour laws but it’s obvious that this type of law was lobbied for by big companies.
nathanco1 on
Take this kind of story as a reminder that you as an employee do not owe loyalty of any sort or commitment to any company, no matter how big or small. Things change over time, companies can grow and at the end of the day, if there is a buck to be saved, they will take it.
35 years of service and suffers an injury on the job. His reward was a rare loophole to be terminated and a “gracious” offer of $2500. Plus of course the need to sign an NDA… just insulting.
Minute_Engineer2355 on
The company that made over 13 billion dollars last year?
Ok_Text8503 on
Undue hardship on a billion dollar company???
Isaac1867 on
According to the article his union has filed a grievance so hopefully he ends up getting a better settlement when the matter goes to arbitration.
Different_Inside_546 on
Can a lawyer not help?? How is this allowed?
oldbutfeisty on
There are a number of details that aren’t being disclosed here. It’s a shame we can’t get the whole story.
TheCanadianShield99 on
Pepsi has a huge opportunity to hire this guy. Fuck you Coke.
leoyvr on
Corporations exploiting employees and not taking responsibility. When are laws, government, people demand more from corporations. Right now, billionaires of corporations are trying to rule the world. See Nerd Reich.
UnionGuyCanada on
Thankfully, he has a Union. A grievance has been filed and now Coke has to prove finding meaningful work for this worker is truly undue hardship. Ot won’t be the Laboir Board, it will be a lawyer, who knows his finding can be challenged if he doesn’t follow the law.
Good luck showing a multi billion dollar company can’t survive finding work for a 35 year employee with limitations.
Sorry he had to go through all this.
naftel on
Excellent reason to continue to NOT drink Coke products.
FogTub on
Never treat an employer better than they treat you. They are all potentially like this.
Creative-Thing7257 on
> When the company let Hopkins go, it cited a rarely-used legal doctrine that lets employers terminate a worker if an unexpected situation makes keeping them an “undue hardship” for the company.
This article is whacky. I would never call undue hardship or frustration of contract a “rarely-used legal doctrine”. These issues arise all the time. Undue hardship is a specific part of the accommodation test under human rights law, frustration occurs any time the employee or employer can no longer abide by the terms of the employment agreement.
It’s also not accurate to say that he is actively causing the company undue hardship, the test is that because of his injury would there be any way to offer accommodation (ie alternative or modified duties) that would not cause the employer undue hardship. Whether the company meets that threshold is another question but it’s very dishonest to present this as some kind of hidden clause in the employment standards legislation that hasn’t been used since 1897.
WCB is income replacement. The article doesn’t say so, but it sounds like he’s been on that since the injury.
MrOake on
Seems odd. I’ve seen construction companies have field guys sit in the office twiddling their thumbs just to avoid the WCB insurance bump by having a lost time incident.
Comfortable_Acadia96 on
It sounds to me that WCB had determined his injuries to be permanent since they have retrained him.
If WCB determines your injuries to be permanent, it means you can not return to your former position. This is typically communicated to both the employees and yhe employer.
Coca cola would have had this information and may have tried to find him another position that he is qualified for. At least this is what they will have to prove in the grievance process. Undue hardship is very difficult to prove. Within Undue, hardship is a duty to “give it a try,” meaning, see if he can do the job.
What I gather from the story is that the legal process is playing out. His case is not closed and is still quite active.
The employer may still be found to have unjustly terminated him via the court of Arbitration.
It’s difficult for employers in this situation. What are to have the employee do? Labour law, human rights law, and OHS legislation all make it clear that the employer does not have to create a job for an employee. They don’t have to have the employee sit at a desk and shuffle paper if that job doesn’t exist.
This gentlemen story is not over. He may win via the grievance process, OR through the grievance process, the union may force the employer to settle before court. He may end up with a good chunk of cash yet.
UserAccountUnknown on
The employer is egregious here, but also Alberta doesn’t have strong worker protections.
silenceisgold3n on
Remember kids. Be loyal to yourself , kids, and dependents. Do your best work because it is a reflection on you and your work ethic. But loyalty to most employers these days is for suckers. If a move or a position of advantage benefits you, give them zero consideration in your choices.
Soft_Difference2030 on
Is there no re-employment obligation with WCB like there is in Ontario? Strange case for sure
21giants on
I hope the other employees see that
Loyalty not reciprocated
Injury risk shifted onto the worker
Long service not valued
A “you’re on your own if you get hurt” message
26 Comments
Well, I guess buying Coke products will be too hard on my wallet.
Fuck PepsiCo.
And fuck Nestle while we’re at it.
The fact that this is a law at all is the real travesty, it’s shameful.
EVERYONE who reads this must do 2 things:
1) CALL Coke Canada and tell them until they make this situation right you’re going to have to terminate buying Coke products because continuing to buy them is going to be too hard on your moral sense of right and wrong.
2) PASS this to everyone you know, including the media to bring attention to how they’re treating one loyal 35-year employee is how they can treat any or all of us. The one thing they don’t want is scrutiny and attention, and that’s the one thing that they’re going to get.
Very unfortunate, but I do hope he got short term disability, long term disability, and of course a nice settlement for the injury?
Apparently not…
>The company offered him a one time “gratuitous” lump sum payment of $2,511.20, “in recognition” of his 35 years of service and to support his transition away from Coke Canada Bottling.
It looks like Coke shifted responsibility to WCB Alberta, which he’ll be getting 90% income until 65. I believe I heard on an employment law show on CFRB 1010 in Toronto that WCB can impact other forms of compensation?
$2500 and an NDA for 35 years of employment, after an injury caused by employer negligence, because anything more would be “undue hardship”.
>On its website, Coca-Cola Canada Bottling Limited describes itself as a “Proudly independent and family-owned” distributor of Coca-Cola products. It operates separately from the Coca-Cola Company.
>It employs over 6,000 people nationwide. In January, it opened a $75-million state-of-the-art, AI-enabled facility in Calgary next to the building where Hopkins worked for decades.
Don’t worry though, they’re growing with AI!
[deleted]
Very disgusting that they even offered him $2500, I hope he gets in touch with some sort of worker injury attorney. I don’t understand Albertan labour laws but it’s obvious that this type of law was lobbied for by big companies.
Take this kind of story as a reminder that you as an employee do not owe loyalty of any sort or commitment to any company, no matter how big or small. Things change over time, companies can grow and at the end of the day, if there is a buck to be saved, they will take it.
35 years of service and suffers an injury on the job. His reward was a rare loophole to be terminated and a “gracious” offer of $2500. Plus of course the need to sign an NDA… just insulting.
The company that made over 13 billion dollars last year?
Undue hardship on a billion dollar company???
According to the article his union has filed a grievance so hopefully he ends up getting a better settlement when the matter goes to arbitration.
Can a lawyer not help?? How is this allowed?
There are a number of details that aren’t being disclosed here. It’s a shame we can’t get the whole story.
Pepsi has a huge opportunity to hire this guy. Fuck you Coke.
Corporations exploiting employees and not taking responsibility. When are laws, government, people demand more from corporations. Right now, billionaires of corporations are trying to rule the world. See Nerd Reich.
Thankfully, he has a Union. A grievance has been filed and now Coke has to prove finding meaningful work for this worker is truly undue hardship. Ot won’t be the Laboir Board, it will be a lawyer, who knows his finding can be challenged if he doesn’t follow the law.
Good luck showing a multi billion dollar company can’t survive finding work for a 35 year employee with limitations.
Sorry he had to go through all this.
Excellent reason to continue to NOT drink Coke products.
Never treat an employer better than they treat you. They are all potentially like this.
> When the company let Hopkins go, it cited a rarely-used legal doctrine that lets employers terminate a worker if an unexpected situation makes keeping them an “undue hardship” for the company.
This article is whacky. I would never call undue hardship or frustration of contract a “rarely-used legal doctrine”. These issues arise all the time. Undue hardship is a specific part of the accommodation test under human rights law, frustration occurs any time the employee or employer can no longer abide by the terms of the employment agreement.
It’s also not accurate to say that he is actively causing the company undue hardship, the test is that because of his injury would there be any way to offer accommodation (ie alternative or modified duties) that would not cause the employer undue hardship. Whether the company meets that threshold is another question but it’s very dishonest to present this as some kind of hidden clause in the employment standards legislation that hasn’t been used since 1897.
WCB is income replacement. The article doesn’t say so, but it sounds like he’s been on that since the injury.
Seems odd. I’ve seen construction companies have field guys sit in the office twiddling their thumbs just to avoid the WCB insurance bump by having a lost time incident.
It sounds to me that WCB had determined his injuries to be permanent since they have retrained him.
If WCB determines your injuries to be permanent, it means you can not return to your former position. This is typically communicated to both the employees and yhe employer.
Coca cola would have had this information and may have tried to find him another position that he is qualified for. At least this is what they will have to prove in the grievance process. Undue hardship is very difficult to prove. Within Undue, hardship is a duty to “give it a try,” meaning, see if he can do the job.
What I gather from the story is that the legal process is playing out. His case is not closed and is still quite active.
The employer may still be found to have unjustly terminated him via the court of Arbitration.
It’s difficult for employers in this situation. What are to have the employee do? Labour law, human rights law, and OHS legislation all make it clear that the employer does not have to create a job for an employee. They don’t have to have the employee sit at a desk and shuffle paper if that job doesn’t exist.
This gentlemen story is not over. He may win via the grievance process, OR through the grievance process, the union may force the employer to settle before court. He may end up with a good chunk of cash yet.
The employer is egregious here, but also Alberta doesn’t have strong worker protections.
Remember kids. Be loyal to yourself , kids, and dependents. Do your best work because it is a reflection on you and your work ethic. But loyalty to most employers these days is for suckers. If a move or a position of advantage benefits you, give them zero consideration in your choices.
Is there no re-employment obligation with WCB like there is in Ontario? Strange case for sure
I hope the other employees see that
Loyalty not reciprocated
Injury risk shifted onto the worker
Long service not valued
A “you’re on your own if you get hurt” message