(HR) Exactly what is a “Just Cause” Termination?

Many union and non-union employers are faced with the reality of executing a “Just Cause” termination.  Gregory Management & Consulting Service clients often ask, what exactly constitutes a “Just Cause termination?

“Just Cause” is usually a term more commonly found in our regional collective bargaining agreements or written employment contracts between and employer and employee.  It is very different from other terms also referred to in the process of a termination, such as, “At Will” or Reduction in Workforce.”  While a general “Reduction in Workforce” is self-explanatory in nature, an “At Will” relationship enables the employer or employer to separate at any time and for any reason without specifying the actual reason.  That is, unless an applicable state law applies that an employer is required to do so.  When contracts do contain “Just Cause” language, the employer defines what “Cause” is in order to terminate the relationship and agreement without prior notice and or previously agreed upon severance package. 

“Just Cause” provisions in employment contracts and language in collective bargaining agreements are different.   As most of our regional collective bargaining agreements (CBA’s) contain “Just Cause” language for discipline or termination, employers should be aware of those differences.  IN a CBA termination, the representing union will most likely grieve the termination forcing the burden of proof on the employer to show that “Just Cause” existed.  A failure to make a persuasive and believable argument based on “Just Cause” opens many employers up to the arbitration process along with additional time and significant additional expense.  The term “Just Cause” in a union environment is subject to interpretation by unions, their legal counsel and arbitrators and more loosely defined then a typical employment contract.        

Worth noting, as it relates to an employment contract, “just cause” provides a level of protection for the employer as it should clearly define the reasons for a termination while releasing the employer from severance obligations in cases of defined misconduct.  Employees gain protection by clearly defining terminable actions and by providing additional protection in the form of defined severance when a termination takes place for reasons not defined as “just cause” offenses. 

Well written “just cause” language will clearly define the basis for termination that lack subjectivity.  While some cases are clear, e.g. theft, misuse of funds, harassment, etc.  Some can be hard to define, e.g. employee performance which could be arguably subjective in nature.  A commonly deployed tactic in this case is to provide an Opportunity to Cure clause in the employment contract.  This language will enable an employer to define their dissatisfaction with the employee under contract and for their termination while mandating that the employee resolve the matters, to “cure.”  A failure to resolve those matters after they have been defined by the employer and acknowledged by the employee will result in a termination while creating a clear and non-subjective record of the actions leading up tp the termination.  For example, “Employee shall have a reasonable opportunity to cure any alleged defect in performance.”
What is an employer to do?
Employers must understand that employee can dispute any reasons for termination or only partially comply with an employer’s reasonable cure demands.  It is always our advice to our clients to seek out legal counsel when drafting these types of agreements and or clauses as, in most cases, these are for highly compensated individuals.