Employee balked at new position on par with other employees who formerly reported to him
A lateral move offered to an employee as part of a restructuring plan was not a constructive dismissal, the British Columbia Supreme Court has ruled.
Warren Meyers, 48, was the applications development team lead for Chevron Canada, having reached that position during his 16 years in the information technology (IT) department for the company. The position was a working supervisory role and he had up to five employees and three contractors reporting to him at various times. His own work accounted for most of his role, while the supervisor duties took up 20 to 30 per cent of his job.
In 2010, Chevron implemented a restructuring process to deal with the global financial crisis. IT services in Canada were centralized and all IT jobs were eliminated with new positions created. The new positions were offered to employees based on their pay scale groups. Each employee was asked to select five new positions and a committee would rank the top employees and offer them positions based on the ranking.
Meyers wanted to apply for the position of manager, IT Canada, but he wasn’t allowed to because it was above his pay scale. Another employee who was on the same level in the organizational chart got the job, but that employee was on the next pay scale.
On July 23, 2010, Meyers was offered a business analyst position, which had the same salary, benefits and bonuses. There were no supervisory duties and the job reported to the same manager as positions that formerly reported to Meyers.
Meyers felt this new job was a “damaging backwards step in my career,” so he refused the offer and informed Chevron he was being constructively dismissed and should be given a severance package. Chevron disagreed and said it would treat his leaving as a resignation. Meyers filed a suit for constructive dismissal.
The court noted Meyers had several job changes during his time with Chevron, some of them lateral moves. At the time of the restructuring, he had three employees reporting to him and never more than five plus a few contractors while he was the applications development team lead. The reduction in direct reports showed Meyers’ supervisory role was diminishing, said the court.
It was also evident the new business analyst position had significant responsibilities in budgetary and project management matters. It was not what Meyers simply characterized as “his former position without supervisory responsibility,” said the court. It was in fact a “senior position in the IT department.”
The court also noted Meyers’ compensation didn’t change. The only major change was that he would have a cubicle instead of his own office. Though Meyers claimed he felt “embarrassed and humiliated” because of this change and the fact employees who formerly reported to him would be equals on the chart, this was not a fundamental change to his duties or a breach of the employment contract, said the court.
“I find that Mr. Meyers was hasty in resigning from his position without determining whether his concerns regarding the job would be borne out,” said the court. “In my opinion, Mr. Meyers resigned by failing to accept the new position that was offered to him.”
