通过PIP被干掉，46岁， 并不太老。
Performance Improvement Plan and Termination of Employment
?? ?? ? Some of the facts regarding the respondent's performance management of the applicant are not in dispute. In 2011, the applicant received a B+ rating on his performance review. In 2012 the applicant's midyear rating was downgraded to C, which meant that his performance was seen as requiring improvement and therefore required that he be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"). The PIP was first implemented in August 2012. There is no dispute that the Canadian division of Huawei began to report directly to China, rather than to the North American headquarters in the United States of America. This change meant the QOD had more onerous reporting obligations.
?? ?? ? The applicant's evidence was that the change in his performance rating was unfair and did not reflect any change in the quality of his work. In the applicant's view, the only explanation for the lower rating of his performance was Mr. Li's opinion that he was too old for his position. The applicant stated that in any event he met all the goals set out in the PIP. The applicant stated that he advised Mr. Schultz that he was concerned that Mr. Li and Mr. Wu criticized him for no reason and that he believed Mr. Li thought he was too old. The applicant stated that Mr. Schultz later advised him that he had spoken with Messrs. Li and Wu who assured Mr. Schultz that they did not consider the applicant to be too old.
?? ?? ? The respondent's position was that the applicant's age was not a factor in the decision to place him on the PIP or to dismiss him from employment. The respondent's position was that Mr. Li had very little to do with managing the applicant's performance.
?? ?? ? William Wu has been employed by the respondent for 17 years and was the Director of the QOD in Canada from 2002 until April 2013. Mr. Wu's evidence was that he was the applicant's direct supervisor and was responsible for managing his performance. Mr. Wu stated that the function of the QOD was to provide support for other business units in the form of financial and quality management. This function entails providing business analysis with a view to identifying business improvements. This analysis was delivered to business units in the form of a variety of reports. Accordingly, the applicant's duties included performing the required analysis and preparing reports. Mr. Wu stated that the QOD had two employees when he began in the department in 2010 - himself and the applicant. By 2013, there were two other employees, one of whom was a contractor. Mr. Wu reported to Mr. Schultz, but sometimes interacted with Mr. Li.
?? ?? ? Mr. Wu’s evidence was that group lunches were not regular, but did occur on occasion when employees were required to work late or on the weekends. Mr. Wu stated that Mr. Li did not attend such lunches very often. Mr. Wu did not recall that Mr. Li ever asked the applicant about his age.
?? ?? ? Mr. Wu's evidence was that although the applicant received a B+ rating in 2011, the applicant needed to improve his ability to perform in-depth analysis, as well as the quality and efficiency of his work. Mr. Wu stated that the applicant also needed to be more proactive. These observations were set out in the applicant's performance review under "Appraisal Remarks". Mr. Wu stated that the C rating the applicant received in 2012 was in part because of the Canadian business began reporting directly to China, rather than through the US unit. The business requirements increased and were more challenging. The Canadian business unit’s management results were not as good as in 2011 and were ranked at the bottom across the organization. Mr. Wu noted his own ranking dropped to a B.
?? ?? ? Mr. Wu stated that the employees are assessed twice per year and there is a midyear and final review. Mr. Wu's concern at midyear in 2012 was that while the applicant met basic requirements, more was required in a small department. The applicant fell short of expectations regarding leadership and quality. Mr. Wu testified that he made tremendous efforts to train the applicant. Notwithstanding these efforts, Mr. Wu's view was that the applicant was unable to work with limited supervision and lacked the business knowledge to make valuable suggestions. Mr. Wu stated they came to these conclusions without input from Mr. Li and did not consider the applicant's age. Mr. Wu noted that the respondent employed many employees who are older than the applicant. Mr. Wu’s concerns were reflected in the applicant's performance review document in 2012 (known as a “Performance Management Platform”).
?? ?? ? As a result, Mr. Wu implemented a PIP with the guidance of Human Resources and Mr. Schultz. The applicant also had input. The PIP itself is a detailed document setting the applicant's objectives. Mr. Wu agreed that the applicant achieved most of his objectives. He noted, however, that the applicant required significant coaching and assistance. Mr. Wu's view was that the applicant required supervision to perform adequately. Mr. Wu's evidence was that, in any event, the decision to dismiss the applicant came about because of reorganization. The applicant's position was combined with a function in the Finance Department and the applicant's position was eliminated. Similarly, a planning function was taken over by the Supply Chain Department, and the contract employee's contract was not renewed. Two employees remained in the QOD, which Mr. Wu understood to be the current structure. Mr. Wu referred to an e-mail message, dated January 7, 2013, from Jay Dressler of Human Resources, indicating that the headcount in the QOD would be reduced by two and directing Mr. Wu to forward performance management documentation to identify the employees to be dismissed. Mr. Wu replied to the message and provided his reasons for selecting the applicant, which were consistent with his comments on the applicant's performance evaluations and PIPs. Mr. Wu also provided a detailed explanation for choosing the applicant for dismissal that was again consistent with his earlier observations. Mr. Wu's evidence was that the applicant was chosen for dismissal because of the reduction in headcount and because he was only an average employee. Mr. Wu recommended to Mr. Schultz and Mr. Li that the applicant be dismissed and they accepted the recommendation.
?? ?? ? Mr. Schultz was employed by the respondent between 2007 and July 2013, when he retired. Mr. Schultz held the position of Senior Vice President Delivery Services, Canada and US, from August 2009 until his retirement. Mr. Schultz confirmed that Mr. Wu advised him of his concerns with the applicant's performance and that he gave Mr. Wu direction regarding the PIP process. Mr. Schultz stated that Mr. Wu prepared a document and was responsible for its content. Mr. Schultz stated that he had to approve the decision to dismiss the applicant, which he did. Mr. Li was Mr. Schultz' deputy and therefore had to be aware of the decision, but did not participate in it or review documents related to it. Mr. Schultz’ evidence was that when it became necessary to reduce headcount the applicant was selected for dismissal because he did not meet his PIP objectives. Mr. Schultz stated that the QOD did not hire anyone else while he was employed. In cross-examination, Mr. Schultz stated that he relied on the advice of Mr. Wu and Human Resources and accepted their recommendation to dismiss the applicant.
?? ?? ? Mr. Li's evidence was that Mr. Wu and the applicant provided his department with monthly reports. Mr. Li recalled being critical of the information presented by the applicant on occasion, which he relayed to Mr. Wu. Mr. Li stated that he was not involved in the PIP for the applicant and saw the document for the first time during the hearing. Mr. Li did have a conversation with Mr. Schultz about the applicant's perception that Mr. Li thought the applicant was too old. Mr. Li stated that he had no such concern and noted that there were a number of employees who were obviously older than the applicant who were doing well.
?? ?? ? Mr. Li stated that he was aware of the decision to dismiss the applicant, but was not involved in making it. Mr. Li understood that the applicant was dismissed because the headcount in the QOD was reduced by two employees and that the applicant's overall performance meant he was chosen along with a contract employee. Mr. Li recalled that the applicant's position was combined with one in the Finance Department and that the contractor's functions were also combined with another department.
?? ?? ? Jay Dressler is the Human Resources Business Partner for the respondent's Business and Delivery Group, the position he has held since August 2011. In this role, he provides human resources support, including support in respect of performance management and termination of employment.
?? ?? ? Mr. Dressler assisted Mr. Wu in his performance evaluation/management duties in the QOD. He confirmed that Mr. Li had no role in the evaluation of the applicant's performance. Mr. Dressler noted that the C performance rating automatically required at PIP. Mr. Dressler stated that he assisted Mr. Wu and the applicant regarding the PIP to ensure that expectations were understood. Mr. Dressler testified that the applicant was chosen for dismissal because the QOD lost two positions and he was the low performer in the group.
Other Issues
?? ?? ? The applicant raised two other issues in his Application, i.e., that he was denied a transfer to another department and that he was not paid a significant amount of overtime. The applicant did not testify about these matters in chief, but was asked about them in cross-examination. He stated that in October 2011 he requested a transfer to "SSD", which was responsible for selling engineering services. He stated there was an opening in the group and he thought he was a good fit. Mr. Wu, however, denied the transfer. The applicant agreed that his age was not given as a reason.
?? ?? ? Mr. Wu's evidence was that the applicant wanted to transfer to the Service Sales Department ("SSD") sometime in 2012. Mr. Wu refused the request because his department was small and he did not have a suitable replacement. He also did not believe that the applicant was suitable for SSD because he lacked sales and customer relations experience and had limited English language proficiency.
?? ?? ? With respect to overtime, the applicant was shown a series of e-mail messages in which he identified his outstanding overtime entitlements to Mr. Dressler, messages between Mr. Wu and Mr. Dressler confirming that the applicant was entitled to the overtime he claimed and a message from Mr. Dressler to the applicant confirming that the respondent would pay him the overtime he claimed. The applicant agreed it had been paid out as requested.
华裔雇员告加拿大华为公司年龄歧视失败