Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, 2020 4 BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A British Columbia worker who was sent home after an altercation with a supervisor and never returned to work quit his employment and was not dismissed by the employer, the B.C. Su- preme Court has ruled. Joe Coutlee, 60, is a tile setter who started working for Apex Granite and Tile on May 4, 2017. Apex is a company that installs tile and granite at commercial construction sites building community centres, swimming pools and apartment buildings. The company is located in Surrey, B.C. When Apex hired Coutlee, it couldn't guarantee full-time employment, but its practice was to provide employees with 40 hours of work each week when there was work available that matched the worker's skills. Coutlee often took time off whenever he felt he needed to — sometimes for seasonal allergies, sometimes for illness such as a cold or the flu, when he didn't sleep well or when his back hurt. He also took days off when it was expected to rain the next day. His absences added up to at least 20 days over the course of the year. Although Apex never wrote him up for absenteeism, timely and regular attendance was important for the ef- ficient operation of teams on worksites. In August 2018, Coutlee started miss- ing more work due to stress that stemmed from a difficult financial situation — his wife wanted to travel to Korea to see her sick mother, which he couldn't afford, and his car insurance lapsed for non-payment. Add- ing to his stress was the fact that he didn't get along with any of the four supervisors with whom he worked — although this was par- tially from his belief that he knew the til- ing trade better than his supervisor and didn't always follow their instructions. His supervisor received complaints from others about his attitude in this regard. Rocky relationships and uneven work The complaints about Coutlee's attitude made it difficult for Apex to manage regular work for him at times, as Coutlee didn't get along with certain employees and alterca- tions caused safety problems. On four occasions, Coutlee was sent home for disciplinary reasons — for a verbal fight with a co-worker, incorrect installing of tile and leaving a site without permission. Another issue arose when Coutlee claimed carrying 12 boxes of tiles in his vehicle to a job site damaged the suspension, struts and tires. Apex gave him $500 toward the repairs, but Coutlee claimed the total bill was $2,200 — although this included an oil change, new filter and oil. In addition, the vehicle was eight years old and had travelled long distances carrying Coutlee's own heavy tools. CASE IN POINT: TERMINATION CREDIT: BANKSPHOTOS ISTOCK It's a common principle in employment law that in order to establish that an employee has quit their job, there must be a clear indication of the employee's intention to do so, particularly if the employee seemed to quit suddenly. That means when it seems that an employee has resigned, the employer must take steps to confirm that the employee wanted to terminate the employment relationship. However, if the actions of the employee could be viewed reasonably as an intention to end their employment, it's likely resignation by the employee will be confirmed. BACKGROUND Employment law blog Canadian Employment Law Today invites you to check out its employment law blog, where editor Jeffrey R. Smith discusses recent cases and developments in employment law. The blog features topics such as cutting pay during the COVID-19 crisis, when accommodation is too difficult and legal considerations for returning employees to the workplace. You can view the blog at www.employmentlawtoday.com. The worker didn't get along with any of the four supervisors with whom he worked. B.C. worker sent home but failure to check in was resignation Worker called in after prior incidents, but this time he requested record of employment

• Cover