Employee made to feel guilty about disability-related absences resigned then changed mind
A Saskatchewan employer wrongfully dismissed a worker who was given a guilt trip that steered her into quitting when it refused to let her change her mind about the resignation, the Saskatchewan Arbitration Board has ruled.
Shannon Ouellette was a case manager with the Saskatoon Regional Health Authority who supported and facilitated the care of troubled youth in the community. Her tenure with the health authority dated back to 2000, when she joined it as an addictions counsellor.
In 2005, Ouellette was involved in two automobile accidents, which left her with serious injuries and a faulty gall bladder. Following the accidents, she often had to be away from work so she could undergo physiotherapy and deal with flare-ups of her gall bladder. Eventually, she was put on a waiting list to have her gall bladder removed and the health authority accommodated her absences.
Return-to-work plan changed after phone call
In September 2009, Ouellette developed pain in her back and another gall bladder flare-up, so she took time off work with an expected return date of Nov. 1. On Oct. 29, she called her supervisor to inform him she was feeling better and would be able to return to work on Nov. 2. However, her supervisor asked her “is this really the best work environment for you?” When she said yes, the supervisor told her that her clients and co-workers were suffering because of her absences and the health authority had been receiving calls from parents of her clients were upset.
Ouellette was shocked and upset by the supervisor’s words, feeling she was letting her co-workers down. When she talked to her doctor about it the next day, the doctor advised she should look for another job if she couldn’t be absent from this one without drawing “hostility” from her bosses.
On Nov. 2, Ouellette decided to resign and called her supervisor. The supervisor agreed that her doctor might be right and the position might not be a good fit for her. Ouellette faxed a letter of resignation to the health authority that day and her supervisor arranged to pack up her things and have her return her work items. Ouellette got the impression he wanted to wrap the situation up as quickly as possible.
In the days that followed, Ouellette grew uncomfortable with her supervisor’s comments and the way things had progressed. After talking to her union representative, she decided she had been coerced into resigning and asked the union to contact the health authority and retract her resignation, which it did on Nov. 10.
The health authority didn’t initially respond and the union contacted the health authority again on Nov. 24, demanding a resolution to the matter. The program manager of Ouellette’s department became aware of Ouellette’s change of mind, but felt Ouellette should have contacted her to rescind the resignation rather than go to her union and accusing her supervisor of pushing her to resign. Another month passed and on Dec. 23, the health authority advised the union it was “not prepared to allow Ms. Ouellette to rescind her resignation at this time.” It also referred Ouellette to its staffing contacts for information on other positions if she was interested in “exploring other employment opportunities” with the health authority.
After the health authority’s response, Ouellette’s gall bladder flare-ups became more frequent and she was hospitalized for a month. Her gall bladder was removed and she was cleared to resume work on March 29, 2010. The union filed a grievance against the health authority, claiming Ouellette was pushed into resigning and it refused to rescind the resignation. However, the supervisor denied making any improper comments that would induce guilt in Ouellette and push her towards resigning.
The board indicated that for a resignation to be in effect, it must be voluntary from both a subjective intention to quit as well as from an objective perspective consistent with terminating employment. In this case, the union agreed Ouellette resigned from an objective perspective, but the subjective intent was absent.
The board found Ouellette’s account of the conversation that took place on Oct 29, 2009, was more accurate, since her only purpose in making the call was to make arrangement for her return to work the following week after an illness. Since she came away from that conversation thinking about resignation — which she then discussed with her doctor and union representative — it was likely the supervisor said something that made her change her mind, said the board.
“What was said must have been quite significant and dramatic, as it caused a long-term employee, who had no problems at work, to do an abrupt turn and make up her mind to resign and not even show up to work on Nov. 2, 2009, to talk about this,” said the board.
The board also noted once Ouellette submitted her resignation, her supervisor moved quickly to finish things up rather than take it to the program manager, which didn’t give Ouellette any “wiggle room” to change her mind. In addition, the health authority didn’t immediately post for a replacement and a year later still hadn’t filled the position, which was inconsistent with the supervisor’s claim that co-workers and clients were left hanging by Ouellette’s absences.
The board found Ouellette was pressured into resigning and her supervisor took advantage of her vulnerability by giving her a “guilt trip” about her disability-related absences. Then, when it was obvious that she had felt pressured and had changed her mind after a short time, the health authority refused to continue the employment relationship, said the board. The health authority was ordered to reinstate Ouellette with no loss in seniority and compensation for pay and benefits lost after Nov. 10, 2009.
“When the employer decided it would not permit (Ouellette) to rescind her resignation it effectively terminated the employment relationship without just cause,” said the board.
For more information see:
