Employee wanted out and used restructuring as excuse, says arbitrator
An employee who claimed constructive dismissal from changes to her job wanted to leave, the Ontario Arbitration Board has ruled.
Tara Webster was hired by Securitas Canada, a security services company in Toronto, in February 2004. In May 2009, she became an administrative assistant for both the information technology (IT) and human resources departments in the head office. The job involved completing expense reports and administrative support for the IT department and helping the HR department with recruiting initiatives and other functions.
Early in 2010, Securitas made several changes to its business and policies to make it more consistent with its operations in the United States. The changes included transferring most of Webster’s IT support duties to other departments and the U.S. branch.
Securitas also made changes to its bonus plan, making only managers eligible. Webster was given a raise in her salary equal to her bonus total of the previous three years, which was $1,268.58. She signed a document agreeing to the compensation change.
On July 20, 2010, Webster resigned and her lawyer sent a letter to Securitas indicating she was suing for constructive dismissal due to the “unilateral transfer or elimination of many of her duties, responsibilities and tasks.” Webster also claimed she resigned because her reporting relationship changed from the IT and HR managers to a lower-level HR professional who was not a manager. This, she said, was a significant reduction in her status and a fundamental change to her employment. The end result of these changes was that she felt “unsatisfied, unneeded and unwanted,” said Webster.
The board found the change in Webster’s status was not significant and the change in her reporting relationship was not a demotion. Though some of her duties changed, she remained an administrative assistant and her new duties remained consistent with that position.
The board also noted several months had elapsed from when the changes were made to Webster’s job to when she quit. During that time, she didn’t express any concerns and she signed a document agreeing to the changes to her compensation. Though she had a meeting with a supervisor to discuss her workload, she apparently didn’t indicate any problems.
The board found Securitas was going through “a transition period that had an effect on the type of work performed” by Webster as well as the amount of work. It characterized the changes as normal for a transition from the administrative assistant of two departments to that of one department. It was more likely Webster anticipated being laid off due to the reduced workload and resigned before that could happen, said the board.
