Elimination of job had nothing to do with leave and everything to do with business restructuring: Adjudicator
The dismissal of a Bell Mobility employee who was on maternity leave was a legitimate business decision and not related to her leave, an adjudicator has ruled.
Margaret Moday was hired by Bell Mobility in April 2000 and worked in a variety of sales, customer service and administrative positions over the next decade. In 2009, she became a performance management co-ordinator (PMC), responsible for providing administrative support for team leads.
In early 2011, Bell Mobility eliminated some PMC positions and Moday was left as one of only three remaining PMCs in the company across Canada. Moday was also pregnant and officially began maternity leave on Aug. 21, 2011. She planned to take the full year off that was allowed and she expected to return to work when her parental leave elapsed on Aug. 21, 2012.
Worker downsized during maternity leave
However, in the fall of 2011, Bell Mobility underwent a large downsizing, eliminating more than 200 jobs in the company. The eliminated positions included the three remaining PMCs. The duties that were handled by PMCs were discontinued, automated or reassigned to other positions.
Bell Mobility sent a termination letter on Nov. 3, 2011, to inform Moday that her position was being eliminated as of Feb. 3, 2012, due to changes in the organization. She would receive a severance package of 5.5 months’ pay and three months’ salary and benefit continuance starting on that date. Moday would also have access to Bell Mobility’s career transition support service.
Moday was also given a choice of two options: remain on leave and receive her severance package and outplacement services when the leave expired in August 2012, or end her leave immediately, return to work and receive the severance package on Feb. 3.
Moday didn’t make a decision and Bell Mobility treated her parental leave as continuing until Aug. 21, 2012. The company emailed her about 700 job postings during her leave and she applied for two of them but was unsuccessful. Moday felt she was capable of at least one of the jobs and filed a complaint of unjust dismissal under the Canada Labour Code, claiming she wasn’t offered her old job back or a comparable position, as required under the code. She also claimed her dismissal was related to her maternity leave.
Bell Mobility denied Moday’s maternity leave had anything to do with the termination of her employment, stating her position was eliminated due to “corporate restructuring and significant downsizing,” making it unable to place her in a comparable position.
The adjudicator noted Moday didn’t dispute that Bell Mobility implemented a restructuring that eliminated her PMC position. However, she argued the code stated employees on maternity leave “shall” be reinstated to their former position or a comparable position when the leave was up — terminology that made reinstatement mandatory.
The adjudicator also noted the code precluded a complaint of unjust dismissal if the worker was “laid off because of a lack of work or because of the discontinuance of a function.” The adjudicator found Bell Mobility had eliminated all three remaining PMC positions, which supported the company’s position that Moday’s maternity leave wasn’t a factor and there was no comparable position to which she could be returned.
Right to reinstatement doesn’t supersede employer’s right to reorganize: Adjudicator
The adjudicator also found the code, like other minimum standards legislation, could not be contracted out of unless better benefits could be implemented by employers. However, the right to reinstatement after maternity and parental leave outlined in the code did not take precedence over other clauses in the code, such as the employer’s right to reorganize the workplace, said the adjudicator. Moday argued the right to reinstatement was “an absolute right” backed up by the code’s s. 168 — which stated Part III of the code containing the reinstatement after maternity leave clause applied notwithstanding any other laws — but this would create “a startling proposition,” said the adjudicator.
“This would place relatively young male or female employees off on parental leave in a vastly superior position to any other employee during a downsizing, including very senior workers or employees off on sick or disability leave,” said the adjudicator. “Much clearer language than section 168 would be needed to require that.”
Though Moday was never offered a comparable position at the end of her maternity and parental leave, the adjudicator found this wasn’t necessary as there was a bona fide elimination of her position and a discontinuance of her function. Moday’s complaint was dismissed.
For more information see:
• Moday and Bell Mobility Inc., Re, 2013 CarswellNat 393 (Can. Labour Code Adj.).