Read the below description and answer the following question: Did Peters accept there would have to be

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Read the below description and answer the following question:

Did Peters accept there would have to be a change to his salary?

Kim Peters was a truck driver in Saskatchewan who owned his own trucking business. In 2006, he was approached by Bannister Daylighting, a Calgary-based company that provides hydro-vac excavating services, to operate a hydro-vac truck in the Swift Current area for the company to help develop its business in the region.

Peters accepted Bannister’s job offer and reached an agreement that he would be paid $12,000 per month for the first three months. Because Peters’ salary would be dependent on how successful operating the truck in Swift Current was and how well he could generate profits, the agreement stipulated there would be a salary review after 90 days.

In August 2006, Bannister told Peter’s things were not going very well and they would have to discuss a new arrangement. Until they could, however, Peters would still be paid the $12,000 per month in the original agreement.

In October, Peters’ supervisor told him the current situation wasn’t working and the company needed to make changes. Peters knew Bannister was having financial problems and agreed to discuss a new arrangement. Bannister suggested Peters prepare a proposal for discussion, but it didn’t accept his proposal and made a counter-proposal with a different payment scheme. Bannister’s suggestions were written as notes on Peters’ proposal and returned to him.

Peters said he didn’t accept the proposal but continued to work for Bannister as he felt he didn’t have any other options at that point. Bannister’s new pay structure from its counterproposal was put into effect in November 2007 and Peters worked under this new arrangement. However, he frequently voiced his displeasure over the new arrangement.

In June 2008, Peters quit his job and began working for a competitor. Bannister made him an offer to stay but it didn’t match the competitor’s offer. Peters then began an action for constructive dismissal, claiming Bannister changed a fundamental term of his employment without his consent, leading to his eventual departure.