Employer followed up acrimonious meeting with email asking to confirm resignation date
A British Columbia winemaker acted too fast when it assumed an employee who packed up his belongings and left the workplace after an argument was quitting his job, the British Columbia Supreme Court has ruled.
The 38-year-old employee was a winemaker hired in 2008 by St. Hubertus Estate Winery, a winery near Kelowna, B.C. He was considered a good employee who achieved positive results from his efforts.
On Oct. 14, 2009, the winemaker decided to take the day off and emailed the owners. However, it was during a busy harvest time and the owners didn’t see the email until later in the day, so they were left wondering where he was in the morning. The winemaker was called into a meeting the next morning, where he took issue with being confronted with what happened. He claimed he felt underappreciated and became emotional.
Over the next month, the winemaker made a few requests that were refused, including working from home, a company car, not having to punch in with the rest of the employees, a cellphone provided by St. Hubertus and a raise. The owners argued that it was a small winery and couldn’t afford such perks.
In March 2010, the winemaker went on vacation and attended a winemaking convention. He learned some new things and emailed the owners indicating his eagerness to try them. However, when he returned, no-one seemed interested in what he had learned.
On April 7, the owners asked the winemaker about which of their wines he thought they should enter in an upcoming competition. The winemaker referred to an earlier email he had sent where he had suggested several choices, but the owners insisted that wasn’t a real answer. The winemaker went to the office of one of the owners to indicate his displeasure at being asked again about the competition.
The winemaker was asked to leave the office but he refused and went on about how he was unappreciated. Things became more heated and the winemaker began making accusations that other staff were being told he was an alcoholic, before starting to cry. After more arguing, the owner told the winemaker that if he was so unhappy, he should look for another position. The winemaker put his cellar keys on the desk. He challenged the owner to fire him and offered up his hand, saying “good luck making wine.” He left the office smiling, gathered his belongings, and left.
The owners wondered if the winemaker was serious about leaving, so they sent him an email recapping their discussion and indicated they needed to “clean up all loose ends” for his departure. The email also said if they failed to hear from him, they would consider him to have resigned immediately.
The court found the winemaker's decision to leave the winery’s property was “poor judgment,” but his actions were designed to get more recognition and praise for the job he was doing, not to resign. It also found the comments and behaviour of both sides were in the heat of the moment and an impartial observer would determine that there was neither a termination nor a resignation in the meeting. However, the email the owners sent later did not reflect the ambiguity of the situation and its wording indicated the winery wanted to let him go, said the court. This email effectively terminated the winemaker's employment.
“The email made no offer of, and left no room for the plaintiff to participate in, rapprochement,” said the court. “A reasonable observer, knowing what had passed between the parties earlier in the day, would have viewed the email as a communication of the defendant's decision to no longer put up with the plaintiff's behaviour.”
Though the winemaker had only worked for St. Huburtus for just under two years, the court found eight months was an appropriate notice because of the skill and specialization of his position.
For more information see:
