Company induced employer to terminate worker
Springhill Farms operates a hog processing plant located near the Town of Neepawa, Man. A condition of its license to operate this plant was that all manure had to be disposed of by spreading it on agricultural land. Hogs were delivered to a hog receiving barn operated by Manitoba Pork on the east side of Springhill Farms’ plant.
After delivering the hogs, truck drivers would dump their pig litter in the vicinity of a pad constructed for that specific use at the farm. Pig litter is the hay or straw used for lining the floors of the trucks together with urine and excrement left behind by the hogs.
Springhill Farms contracted with Terry Labuik to haul the pig litter away. Although to Springhill pig litter is considered a waste to be disposed of, to many farmers pig litter is a valued source of fertilizer. Mr. Labuik entered into an agreement with one such area farmer, Terry Payjack, whereby he would haul pig litter to Mr. Payjack’s property. This arrangement began in 1993 and continued for three years.
In 1996 when Mr. Payjack went to spread the pig litter over his field he discovered that it was full of garbage making it difficult to spread. He contracted with two different companies to spread the litter as well as spent a great deal of time removing the garbage personally. Mr. Payjack complained to Springhill Farms on numerous occasions about the garbage.
He even left a bag of garbage from the litter at the plant. He telephoned the plant supervisor and told him that he intended to sue Springhill Farms. He attended at the plant and had a verbal altercation with the assistant general manager.
In November 1998 Mr. Payjack took a carpentry job with Regent Construction Ltd. to supplement his farm income. The job involved working at the Springhill Farms plant to build an addition.
On the second day of his employment, management of Springhill Farms advised the foreman of Regent Construction that Mr. Payjack’s presence at the plant was not acceptable. Mr. Payjack’s employment was terminated as a result.
Mr. Payjack brought an action against Springhill Farms for damages, citing negligence for the extra costs he incurred because of the garbage in the pig litter and for interference in his contractual relationship with Regent Construction.
To succeed in a claim of interference in contractual relationship seven elements must be demonstrated.
First, there had to be a contract. In this case there was an employment contract between Mr. Payjack and Regent Construction.
Second, Springhill Farms had to know or been assumed to be aware of the contract. From the facts of this case the Court found that Springhill Farms was aware that Mr. Payjack was an employee of Regent.
Third, there had to be a breach or non-performance of the primary obligation of contract by a contracting party. By terminating Mr. Payjack, Regent was in breach of its contractual obligations to him.
The fourth element required that Springhill Farms had to intend to interfere with the contract. Springhill Farms argued that it did not intend for Mr. Payjack to be fired by Regent, merely that he be removed from their plant. It argued that it had no knowledge that its actions would lead to Mr. Payjack’s termination.
The Court did not accept this argument. Springhill Farms was aware that Regent, a Winnipeg-based contractor, was only operating in Neepawa to fulfill the contract for the expansion of its plant. It was foreseeable that Mr. Payjack was only hired for that project and would be terminated as a result of being refused access to the property. The Court held that Springhill Farms was reckless as to the effect their actions would have on Mr. Payjack’s contractual relations with Regent.
To prove the fifth element it must be shown that Springhill Farms induced the breach or non-performance. Regent gave evidence that Mr. Payjack was a good employee and would have remained in their employ but for the demands of Springhill Farms.
The sixth element is that Mr. Payjack must have suffered damage, which he clearly did when his employment was terminated.
The seventh and final element to be proven was that Springhill Farms acted without justification. The Court found that the construction was not in an area where Mr. Payjack would interfere with the day-to-day operations of Springhill Farms. His presence posed no threat to the plant or its employees. Therefore the Court found that the actions were not justified.
Having demonstrated that all seven elements for interference with contractual relations were met, the Court awarded damages of $4,048.20 which represented the amount Mr. Payjack would have earned had he stayed to finish the project with Regent.
In addition to these damages Mr. Payjack was successful in his action in negligence and was awarded damages of $8,460.90.
For more information:
• Payjack v. Springhill Farms, 2002 MBQB 98.
After delivering the hogs, truck drivers would dump their pig litter in the vicinity of a pad constructed for that specific use at the farm. Pig litter is the hay or straw used for lining the floors of the trucks together with urine and excrement left behind by the hogs.
Springhill Farms contracted with Terry Labuik to haul the pig litter away. Although to Springhill pig litter is considered a waste to be disposed of, to many farmers pig litter is a valued source of fertilizer. Mr. Labuik entered into an agreement with one such area farmer, Terry Payjack, whereby he would haul pig litter to Mr. Payjack’s property. This arrangement began in 1993 and continued for three years.
In 1996 when Mr. Payjack went to spread the pig litter over his field he discovered that it was full of garbage making it difficult to spread. He contracted with two different companies to spread the litter as well as spent a great deal of time removing the garbage personally. Mr. Payjack complained to Springhill Farms on numerous occasions about the garbage.
He even left a bag of garbage from the litter at the plant. He telephoned the plant supervisor and told him that he intended to sue Springhill Farms. He attended at the plant and had a verbal altercation with the assistant general manager.
In November 1998 Mr. Payjack took a carpentry job with Regent Construction Ltd. to supplement his farm income. The job involved working at the Springhill Farms plant to build an addition.
On the second day of his employment, management of Springhill Farms advised the foreman of Regent Construction that Mr. Payjack’s presence at the plant was not acceptable. Mr. Payjack’s employment was terminated as a result.
Mr. Payjack brought an action against Springhill Farms for damages, citing negligence for the extra costs he incurred because of the garbage in the pig litter and for interference in his contractual relationship with Regent Construction.
To succeed in a claim of interference in contractual relationship seven elements must be demonstrated.
First, there had to be a contract. In this case there was an employment contract between Mr. Payjack and Regent Construction.
Second, Springhill Farms had to know or been assumed to be aware of the contract. From the facts of this case the Court found that Springhill Farms was aware that Mr. Payjack was an employee of Regent.
Third, there had to be a breach or non-performance of the primary obligation of contract by a contracting party. By terminating Mr. Payjack, Regent was in breach of its contractual obligations to him.
The fourth element required that Springhill Farms had to intend to interfere with the contract. Springhill Farms argued that it did not intend for Mr. Payjack to be fired by Regent, merely that he be removed from their plant. It argued that it had no knowledge that its actions would lead to Mr. Payjack’s termination.
The Court did not accept this argument. Springhill Farms was aware that Regent, a Winnipeg-based contractor, was only operating in Neepawa to fulfill the contract for the expansion of its plant. It was foreseeable that Mr. Payjack was only hired for that project and would be terminated as a result of being refused access to the property. The Court held that Springhill Farms was reckless as to the effect their actions would have on Mr. Payjack’s contractual relations with Regent.
To prove the fifth element it must be shown that Springhill Farms induced the breach or non-performance. Regent gave evidence that Mr. Payjack was a good employee and would have remained in their employ but for the demands of Springhill Farms.
The sixth element is that Mr. Payjack must have suffered damage, which he clearly did when his employment was terminated.
The seventh and final element to be proven was that Springhill Farms acted without justification. The Court found that the construction was not in an area where Mr. Payjack would interfere with the day-to-day operations of Springhill Farms. His presence posed no threat to the plant or its employees. Therefore the Court found that the actions were not justified.
Having demonstrated that all seven elements for interference with contractual relations were met, the Court awarded damages of $4,048.20 which represented the amount Mr. Payjack would have earned had he stayed to finish the project with Regent.
In addition to these damages Mr. Payjack was successful in his action in negligence and was awarded damages of $8,460.90.
For more information:
• Payjack v. Springhill Farms, 2002 MBQB 98.
