Canadian Employment Law Today

director, saying she "was not quitting, just not willing to come back into the office until the issue of the board trying to fire me for re- porting the irregularities in the accounting office was addressed." She said if her record of employment wasn't reversed, she would file a full complaint with the provincial ombudsman and "yet another government agency" would know all the details of what had been going on. e executive director responded that the record of employment was accurate since L.C. had "walked off the job and didn't report back." Later, L.C. was informed her position had been filled. She then filed a complaint alleging that Stradbrook "took measures against her which negatively impacted her employment" as a reprisal to her good-faith disclosure of wrongdoing, contrary to Mani - toba's e Public Interest Disclosure (Whis- tleblower Protection) Act (PIDA). e labour board agreed with L.C. that her report of accounting irregularities at Stradbrook was a disclosure protected under PIDA. However, the labour board found there was no indication Stradbrook, the board of directors, or the new executive director were upset with L.C. for making that disclosure. e president of the board of directors had acknowledged L.C.'s report and agreed with her concerns about the old executive director. After installing a new executive di - rector, he specifically contacted L.C. to in- form her of what happened, to thank her for her report, and to say he hoped she would continue in her current role. is showed appreciation for L.C. for raising her con - cerns, the labour board said. Legitimate business concerns e labour board also found that the in- quiries about supervisors taking over ac- counting duties was motivated by legiti- mate business concerns. Stradbrook had financial difficulties and was "in a peril- ous financial situation, and the board of directors was concerned over the amount of hours L.C. had been working, as they were much greater than for what she had been hired. e board of directors recom- mended L.C. return to the hours she had been hired to work as it couldn't justify the increased hours. In addition, the board of directors wasn't prepared to meet directly with L.C. — in- stead, it believed any communications about L.C.'s employment status should be through the new executive director, who was L.C.'s direct boss. e refusal to meet with L.C. did not fall under PIDA's definition of a re - prisal and could not be a reprisal for making a disclosure, said the labour board. Finally, the labour board found that it wasn't a reprisal when Stradbrook deter - mined L.C. had quit her job. L.C. indicated she wasn't quitting, but she said she wouldn't come back before the board met with her. She paid herself in advance on her last day of work, said goodbye to various staff mem - bers, and left without returning. Two weeks later, she still hadn't returned, so it was rea- sonable for Stradbrook to take the position she had quit and issue a record of employ- ment indicating as much. "Although (L.C.) maintained that she had not quit, and she provided no letter of resig- nation, by her actions it was reasonable for the employer to conclude that she had end- ed the employment relationship," said the labour board in dismissing L.C.'s complaint. "is cannot be viewed as an act of reprisal by the employer. Rather, it was an action by (L.C.) who was not prepared to continue to work for the employer absent it meeting cer - tain conditions." For more information see: • L.C. and Stradbrook Residential Services, Re, 2018 CarswellMan 535 (Man. Lab. Bd.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 January 9, 2019 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: MARGOE EDWARDS/SHUTTERSTOCK ABOUT THE AUTHOR JEFFREY R. SMITH Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.r.smith@thomsonreuters.com, or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information.

• Cover