Timing of decision soon after worker’s pregnancy reveal raised eyebrows, but evidence showed declining revenues and no place for worker in other office
A British Columbia worker has lost her discrimination complaint when the office where she worked was closed and her employment terminated two months after she announced she was pregnant.
Skeena Rent-A-Car is a car rental service based primarily in Terrace, B.C., with offices in Terrace and at the airport shared by Terrace and Kitimat, B.C. In February 2011, the company set up an office in Kitimat to tap into the demand for increased vehicle rentals there due to a new policy by Rio Tinto, a large company in Kitimat, associated with a modernization project that was underway. Rio Tinto’s policy was to transport employees from the airport to Kitimat in company-owned buses. Because of this policy during the modernization project, Rio Tinto employees were unable to rent vehicles at the airport and instead had to do so in Kitimat.
Skeena hired Sierra Crockart in August 2014 to be the manager of the Kitimat branch. She also occasionally worked at the airport office. In 2014 and 2015, revenues for the Kitimat branch were high, so Crockart had two employees working under her.
In January 2017, one of Crockart’s employees quit and Skeena decided not to hire a replacement since revenue was down in Kitimat by then — Rio Tinto’s modernization project had wrapped up and rentals at the Kitimat branch were decreasing steadily. By the end of 2017, revenues in Kitimat were only six per cent of 2016’s and the second employee had left, leaving Crockart the only employee at the branch. However, she was considered a good employee and received a raise in August 2017.
In September 2017, Crockart told co-workers she was pregnant after she missed a day due to nausea. She went on vacation shortly afterwards and during that time, employees from the Terrace branch covered Kitimat business. The company checked the list for car reservations for the Kitimat branch and discovered that for the six weeks leading up to Christmas 2017, there wasn’t a single reservation. Skeena determined the Kitimat branch was no longer economically feasible and decided to close it.
Office closure after declining revenues
Skeena’s vice-president told Crockart in mid-November that the Kitimat branch was going to be shuttered and Crockart’s employment was being terminated with three weeks’ working notice. However, an email from the vice-president provided slightly different information, indicating the Kitimat branch would remain open but unstaffed. If there was a reservation for three days or longer, Skeena would send an employee from Terrace to do the work.
Crockart thought Skeena should offer her employment at the Terrace office rather than terminate her employment, as the company was willing to send an employee from Terrace to Kitimat but not have her come to Terrace. However, the vice-president said that it wouldn’t be safe for her to commute to Terrace in the winter.
Skeena’s vice-president had purchased the building in which the Kitimat office was located in September 2017 — which Crockart believed meant he was investing in the Kitimat part of the business — but the branch closed for good in March 2018.
Crockart filed a human rights complaint, claiming her pregnancy was a factor in her termination as Skeena took the opportunity to avoid hiring and training a replacement for her and paying her medical benefits while on maternity leave. She said Skeena was fine with other employees driving from Terrace to Kitimat in the winter, and she herself frequently drove to Terrace to work at that office, exchange vehicles, or get maintenance done before she was pregnant. She also argued that the company couldn’t have truly known how many reservations there would be leading up to Christmas at the time of her termination, as reservations can be made at any time online and are difficult to project.
Timing of announcement was a consideration
The tribunal noted that while Crockart claimed her pregnancy was a factor in the termination of her employment, the basis for her argument was that Skeena gave her notice of termination within two months from when she announced that she was pregnant. The tribunal acknowledged that the timing of the dismissal notice “could give rise to a reasonable inference that Ms. Crockart’s pregnancy was a factor in the adverse treatment.”
However, the tribunal found that the evidence showed there was a significant drop in revenue for the Kitimat office in 2016 and 2017 and there was a “dearth of reservations” in late 2017 at the time of her dismissal. Crockart argued that there was no need to close the office due to potential rentals made online, but this was speculation, said the tribunal.
The tribunal also found that Crockart’s argument that she should have been transferred her to the Terrace office but wasn’t because of her pregnancy was also speculation. There was no evidence the Terrace office wasn’t fully staffed and there was any position available for Crockart. The decision was to close the Kitimat office and dismiss its staff — which consisted only of Crockart by then, said the tribunal.
“(Skeena) has reduced its staff by one; the person employed in the office it was closing,” the tribunal said. “Ms. Crockart points to no requirement that she be able to ‘bump’ employees in Terrace to have (Skeena) achieve the staff reduction it sought.”
The tribunal determined the evidence showed the Kitimat office was no longer financially sustainable and there was reason to close it. Any remaining business in Kitimat could be serviced by the Terrace office — as it was before the Kitimat office opened in 2011 — and the office closure was reasonably accompanied by a reduction in staff. Crockart was unable to prove her pregnancy played any role in the decision to terminate her employment and accordingly the tribunal dismissed her complaint.
For more information see:
• Crockart v. Skeena Rent-A-Car, 2018 CarswellBC 2233 (B.C. Human Rights Trib.).
