Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian Employment Law Today | 11 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 Cases and Trends needed for the following day broke down. Krulikoski was asked to work late to repair it, but he refused unless he was paid over- time pay. e production supervisor spoke to the senior production supervisor about it and they decided to discuss the matter with Krulikoski, hoping they could work with him on his ability to interact with colleagues. ey met the following Monday morning, July 10, and the senior production super- visor discussed the importance of getting vehicles ready to go for the following day. Krulikoski was angry and said he wasn't go- ing to work overtime hours without getting paid for them, to which he was told he could come in early and leave early, but the vehicles needed to be ready for the day either way and the company didn't want him to work over- time hours. Krulikoski stood up and said, "I guess I'm going to find another job" and left. e two production managers tracked Krulikoski down in the mechanic shop and told him they still wanted him to be part of the team, but Krulikoski — who was still agitated — reiterated that he wouldn't work overtime hours without overtime pay. e senior production manager said he would get lieu time if he had to work extra hours, but Krulikoski insisted on more money for overtime. When the senior production man- ager said no, Krulikoski responded by saying he wanted to do less work and began listing things he didn't want to do anymore. He started to pack up his tools and walked out, saying once again that he was going to find another job. e senior production supervisor went to tell the owner that Krulikoski had just quit, and when he returned to the mechanic shop, Krulikoski was there packing up the rest of his tools. According to the supervisor, Kru- likoski shook his hand and told him it was "nice working with you." e senior produc- tion supervisor then requested his keys to the company truck, his company credit card, and cellphone. e company provided Krulikoski with a letter dated July 12 summarizing the events of Krulikoski's last day as well as a discussion the production supervisors had had with him along with the company vice-president in which Krulikoski had demanded a raise. Afterwards they had asked Krulikoski to think about whether he wanted to be a part of the team but Krulikoski didn't change his position, and they all agreed he was no lon- ger a good fit to remain. e letter acknowledged that Krulikoski had told four people in the company that he was looking for another job and he wanted more money for less work, and that he was "no longer an asset to the company." e company provided Krulikoski with four weeks' termination pay on the advice of the Ontario employment standards website and helpline, which the vice-president consulted because she was inexperienced in such mat- ters. Krulikoski filed a complaint claiming Let's Landscape Together terminated his employ- ment in reprisal for his demand for overtime pay to which he was entitled under employ- ment standards legislation. e company denied the charge, arguing Krulikoski quit his job and ended the employment relation- ship himself. An employment standards officer re- viewed Krulikoski's complaint and agreed that the company terminated Krulikoski's employment and it was a reprisal for his de- mand to be paid overtime pay. Let's Land- scape together appealed this decision to the board. e board found that Krulikoski demon- strated dissatisfaction with his terms of em- ployment when he demanded more money and told the company what he would and wouldn't do. He also refused the company's suggestion to working more flexible hours — coming in early and leaving early — rather than working overtime, saying he would rather have overtime pay. Krulikoski's objective intention was fur- ther supported by the fact he told a co-work- er days before that he was going to look for another job and then said the same thing in the July 10 meeting. When the company re- fused to give him his way, he first walked out of the meeting and started packing up, then walked away from the mechanic shop. In ad- dition, Krulikoski had a chance to change his mind, but he came back later, packed up his tools and told the senior production man- ager it was nice working with him, said the board. As for the discussion involving the vice- president, the board noted that the letter stated they "all" agreed Krulikoski was no longer a fit. at encompassed Krulikoski as well, and Krulikoski didn't disagree or make any indication he wanted to stay, said the board. e board also noted that the four weeks' pay the company provided Krulikoski wasn't based on any intention to terminate Kru- likoski's employment, but rather it was pro- vided on the advice of the employment stan- dards website and helpline. e board determined that Krulikoski voluntarily left his employment with Let's Landscape Together because the company wasn't prepared to meet his demands to have him work overtime. It overturned the employment standards officer's decision and dismissed the complaint. "In summation, the absence of agreement to change the terms and conditions of (Kru- likoski's) employment to his satisfaction led to a 'mutual parting of the ways' as stated by (the company)," the board said. "In the real world of employment relationships, this is not an uncommon scenario under which an employee elects to leave his or her employ- ment if demands for better pay and working conditions are not met." For more information see: • 1165298 Ontario Inc. v. Krulikoski, 2018 CarswellOnt 10698 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.). Employee said he was looking for other another job « from ANGRY WORKER on page 1 does not take the complaint seriously if op- erations remain status quo. Further, there is a risk that employees feel as though their safety is threatened by hav- ing to immediately face the accused harasser during the investigation. As investigations often occur promptly after a complaint is received, tensions are often higher and em- ployees may fear escalation or retaliation from the accused harasser or other cowork- ers if the accused harasser is not removed from the workplace. If employers are unable to put the alleged harasser on administrative leave, or deter- mine there is no risk to the investigation nor risk of retaliation, the following practices may be implemented as an alternative to an administrative suspension: • Remove the complainant from the harass- ing environment • Place the accused harasser on a different shift schedule • Prohibit communication between the ac- cused harasser and complainant • Move the alleged harasser to another work station or work project. For more information see: • Cabiakman c. Industrielle Alliance, cie d'assurance sur la vie, 2004 CarswellQue 1744 (S.C.C.). Tim Mitchell practices management- side labour and employment law with Norton Rose Fulbright in Calgary. He can be reached at (403) 267-8225 or tim.mitchell@nortonrosefulbright.com. Separation needed « from ASK AN EXPERT on page 2 Employee:"I guess I'm going to find another job."

• Cover