Canadian HR Reporter

28 www.hrreporter.com C O L U M N S E M P L O Y M E N T L AW WORKER WHO WENT HOME NOT A QUITTER Alberta employer was too hasty in determining that an employee quit her job, putting it on the hook for damages in lieu of notice of dismissal, the Alberta Labour Relations Board has ruled. Tracy Lind worked for Windsor Plywood — a company providing retail business supplies and finishing products for home construction and renovations — performing sales, accounts payable and accounts receivable duties to the Alberta market for five years. On June 25, 2018, Lind reported for work but wasn't feeling very well — she had been ill two days earlier and hadn't fully recovered. It was a hot and humid day, so Lind stood by the store entrance in the late morning to get some fresh air. Lind's supervisor came by and asked Lind to clean the bathrooms as it was her turn to do so. Lind replied that she would clean them later as she had her whole shift to do it. The supervisor left to assist a customer, but when he returned about 20 minutes later, Lind was still standing in the entrance. He said she needed to do something other than stand in the doorway and asked her if she wanted to go home. Lind believed that the supervisor was asking her to leave and that she had to either clean the bathrooms or be fired. She had never seen an employee fired this way — the manager had ultimate authority over dismissals but could give permission to the supervisor — and she told the supervisor that she hoped he knew that she wouldn't be coming back. The supervisor thought this meant that she wouldn't be coming back for the rest of her shift, but Lind believed that she was being dismissed. When Lind got home, she texted the company's owner and thanked him for the opportunity to work at his stores. She also said that she was told to leave because she wouldn't immediately clean the bathrooms. The owner contacted the manager and asked what was happening and the manager contacted the supervisor. The supervisor explained that Lind had been standing in the front entrance and refused to clean the bathrooms, then left the store after he asked if she wanted to go home, saying that she wouldn't be back. The supervisor stressed that he hadn't given Lind a directive to go home and there was no discussion about terminating her employment. The manager determined that Lind had quit, so he had the supervisor change the schedule to cover Lind's shifts. Later that afternoon, Lind checked the work schedule online and found that she was no longer on it. She took this to mean that she had been dismissed. On June 26, Lind texted the manager to ask about her final pay. She said that she hadn't walked out but was told to go home, to which the manager didn't reply. Windsor Plywood sent Lind a letter stating that it was her choice to leave her employment, as she knew that only the manager had the authority to fire her. The letter also said that Lind had texted the owner saying she was leaving and her request for her final pay indicated that she had quit. Lind filed a complaint claiming termination pay, maintaining that she had been dismissed from her job. The board found that it was reasonable for Lind to assume her supervisor had the authority to terminate her employment — even though it was the manager's responsibility, the supervisor could fire employees with the manager's consent. From the company's perspective, it didn't think that Lind had quit until she texted the owner — a message that led the owner to believe she had left of her own accord. However, the board also found that the manager didn't directly discuss the matter with Lind. And her inquiry the next day — where she stated that she hadn't walked out and had been told to go home — should have been "a clear flag" that Lind may not have quit, said the board. However, he didn't follow up. The onus is always on the employer to confirm clearly and unequivocally that an employee intends to resign and Windsor Plywood didn't do so, said the board, noting that the manager could have left a message for Lind to contact him and tried to clarify her text that said she didn't walk out and was told to go home. Instead, it sent her a letter stating its view of the matter — that she had quit. The company was ordered to pay Lind $3,138.48 in lieu of termination notice plus costs. See Josta Plywood Sales Ltd. and Lind, Re, 2020 CarswellAlta 864 (Alta. Lab. Rel. Bd.). CHRR After a dispute between an employee and management, there may be uncertainty as to whether an employee has quit. Jeffrey R. Smith highlights an Alberta decision that confirms the employer's obligation to clear up any confusion WHY ARE EMPLOYEES LOOKING TO FIND A NEW JOB? Jeffrey Smith Editor of Canadian Employment Law Today Source: CareerAddict When the employee told the manager that she hadn't walked out and had been told to go home instead, it should have been ''a clear flag'' that she may not have quit. AN 77% poor benefits 77% lack of promotion 82% lack of progression 79% bad leadership

• Cover