Why a South Okanagan winery had to pay extra severance to a laid off employee

A South Okanagan winery has been ordered to pay $1,200 to its former marketing director after a BC Tribunal found that she should have been given at least six weeks’ notice before being laid off.

The case involves former Montalvino Wineries marketing director Levi Gogolinski, who in September 2024 was given three weeks’ notice that the winery would be closing the next month, and her work would end.

Gogolinski had worked at the winery for almost two years, and according to BC employment law, would be eligible to get two weeks pay as compensation.

However, Gogolinski took Montalvino Wineries to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, arguing she was owed $1,262 for lack of sufficient notice.

In the April 24 decision, Montalvino Wineries argued that it had calculated and paid Gogolinski’s final wages, in excess of what was required under the BC Employment Standards Act.

In evidence, the winery submitted the BC Employment Standards Act, showing that Gogolinski’s final paycheque exceeded what was required under BC employment law.

However, the Tribunal ruled that while that may be, it had jurisdiction to order compensation based on common law, not BC employment law.

The case highlights the difference between what employers are legally mandated to do under the province’s employment laws and what the courts, following BC’s common law, see as reasonable compensation. 

The common law is based on factors including the employee’s age, the type and length of employment, and the availability of similar employment.

Laid-off employees who can afford lawyers have traditionally headed to the BC Supreme Court to argue for more severance pay. In 2021, a Kelowna IT manager sued his former firm after it paid him $15,000, which was the required eight weeks’ severance. The judge ruled under common law that he was owed $100,000.

Deep pockets aren’t required for the Civil Resolution Tribunal, which charges $125 to file a claim.

And the Tribunal is seeing more people filing against former employers, and when successful, being awarded more severance pay than stipulated under the Employment Standards Act.

In Gogolinski’s case, the Tribunal ruled she was likely entitled to more than six weeks’ notice, and at a minimum, at least six weeks of notice.

As her termination letter said the winery was giving her six weeks notice, but she received it four days late, Gogolinski argued she was owed four days pay, totalling $1,262.

The Tribunal agreed.

Gogolinski had also wanted $184 for mileage reimbursement but failed to provide evidence, so the Tribunal dismissed it.

She also made claims of unfair dismissal, claiming that the winery didn’t actually close, and it hired new staff. However, the Tribunal ruled that it wasn’t raised in her original filing and dismissed the claim.