Canadian Employment Law Today - sample

Canadian Employment Law Today | 7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 More Cases termination of this agreement." e agree- ment didn't specify hours or rate of pay. Objected to new on-call schedule e on-call procedure for the farmer's mar- ket was changed after one Saturday the market manager was unable to contact the guard on call. After that, TAC required the guard on duty to stay onsite during the mar- ket's operating hours. Scott and another guard disagreed with the new procedure and both refused to work the farmer's market as long as it remained in place. TAC had to hire a part-time employee to alternate Saturdays with the third full- time guard, who was also asked to prepare an outline of new employee duties, which called for the reduction of one employee. As the senior employee in New Brunswick, Scott had the first opportunity to accept or reject the new setup. e third full-time guard emailed Scott to say all employees were expected to take their turn working the farmer's market, and the employee who did so would be on call that week. As a result, no specific days off could be guaranteed — Scott was used to al- ways having ursdays off — but he would still be paid for 40 hours per week. Scott felt he wouldn't be getting paid for working an extra shift at the market every third week if his hours didn't go over 80 for the two-week pay period, but was losing his assured day off on ursdays. Scott told TAC he was going "to the labour board along with other complaints" and "I'll have my keys and uniform to you ASAP." He also requested his record of employment and complained that the third guard "had no right to force me to make a decision." TAC responded by telling Scott it accept- ed his resignation and would provide four weeks' severance pay. Scott dropped his keys and uniforms in the company mailbox, but TAC reported not receiving them. One month later, Scott emailed TAC's president to say he hadn't quit, but simply didn't agree with the new setup. He filed an unjust and constructive dismissal complaint, claiming he was pressured into either agree- ing with the new duties or face dismissal. e adjudicator noted that the email with the changes indicated Scott would still be paid for 40 hours per week and paid over- time for any hours in excess of 80 over two weeks. Scott apparently didn't believe this, but he should have waited to see if that was the case rather than accusing TAC of fun- damentally changing his conditions of em- ployment, said the adjudicator. e adjudicator also found that, while Scott normally took ursdays off, this was not part of any official employment agree- ment. e company was within its rights as the employer to determine the days off for employees as long as they complied with employment standards requirements re- garding hours of work and overtime. e adjudicator determined that TAC's changes didn't constitute constructive dis- missal and Scott's reaction to them indicat- ed "his clear intention to resign his position with TAC" — confirmed when he returned his keys and uniform. When he didn't show up for work after that, it was reasonable to conclude that Scott "did subjectively and objectively resign his employment as a guard with TAC." "ere indeed was no contractual obliga- tion to consult the employees on this deci- sion, which I find was made for legitimate business reasons," said the adjudicator in dismissing Scott's complaint. See Scott and Trans Armored Canada Inc., Re, 2019 Car- swellNat 126 (Can. Lab. Code Adj.). No change to worker's pay or hours worked « from WORKER QUITS on page 1 VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE HR VENDORS AND SUPPLIERS Voting for the 2019 Readers' Choice Awards is underway — and we want your opinion on who you think is the best at what they do. Cast your ballot today, and in July we'll reveal the winners in a special feature in Canadian HR Reporter. It's an exclusive look into who you, and your peers, think are the top companies in the country. Voting closes on March 18. www.hrreporter.com/2019-readers-choice-awards 2 0 1 9 READERS' WINNER CHOICE

• Cover