View cases - Stewart McKelvey

2000. Mr. Jones therefore calculates the difference in his basic pay for this period as $3,916.80,to which he adds the C.H.E. RRSP contributions of $450. However, at Menzies most weeks heis able to work about 4 hours of overtime at $18/hr. (or $2,592 over 36 weeks), which must besubtracted from his lost income. Therefore his estimated lost income from January 1, 2000 to thedate of the hearing was $1,774.80.[51] Mr. Jones’ total loss of earnings from November 18, 1998 to the commencement of thehearing was $21,243.56. I am satisfied that he took reasonable steps to mitigate that loss. Heengaged in an extensive job search and part-time employment until he accepted a position atMenzies that paid less than his previous job. His decision to take a lower-paid position wasreasonable in the circumstances: he is in his mid-fifties with a grade 12 education with littleexperience other than merchandising. In my opinion, he is entitled to compensation for the fullamount of that loss with interest.[52] Mr. Jones’ claim for projected loss of earnings is based on the difference between hiscurrent pay at Menzies and his pay at C.H.E., projected over approximately six years.Calculation of future loss of earnings is inherently speculative. In this case, Mr. Jones’calculations assume that the differential between his wages at Menzies and C.H.E. would remainconstant. However, he was a long-term employee at C.H.E. He had shown no interest inchanging to another position; indeed he was very resistant to the idea. In my opinion, hisopportunity for additional income at C.H.E. was very limited. On the other hand, he is arelatively new employee at Menzies. He received a $2/hr. increase in the first year. He testifiedthat he hopes for a further increase and that he has no reason to believe that he will not bepromoted. It is possible that he will eventually earn more at Menzies than at C.H.E., particularlywhen overtime pay is considered. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent Mr. Jones fromcontinuing to search for a position that pays more than his current one. There is no evidence thathe has made any efforts to find more lucrative employment since accepting the position atMenzies. In my opinion, in this case an award for the projected loss of earnings is notappropriate.[53] The Complainant’s claim for vacation pay is based on the shorter paid vacation hereceives at Menzies than at C.H.E.. At C.H.E. he received five weeks of paid vacation. In his14