Read the facts of this case and decide for yourself
Jeff Trevitt, 37, was involved in a car accident unrelated to his work on Aug. 1, 2004. At the time he was employed by Blanche Equipment Rental Ltd. in British Columbia as a heavy equipment mechanic and was also the foreman/service manager. He had been with the company since 1993. He suffered several injuries in the accident and, as a result, has been unable to work.
Just over a month after the accident, Blanche hired Tim Brown, initially as a temporary employee. The company hired Brown to fill in while Trevitt was gone because his absence had created a crisis. Two weeks after he was hired, Brown was made a permanent employee. He performed the same duties as Trevitt, and was called a foreman.
Trevitt claimed he was demoted at a meeting in mid-September 2004. Trevitt said he was told by management that if he came back to Blanche, he would have “a job” there. Trevitt noted that the company did not say “your” job.
There were a number of telephone calls between Trevitt and the company. The issue of a severance package was apparently brought up by Trevitt and so was the notion that he might have been constructively dismissed from his employment.
The company was a bit flabbergasted about the talk of severance and constructive dismissal. Following a number of telephone calls, the company sent him a letter on Feb. 9, 2005. It noted that conversations with him had centred on severance pay, even though there had been no talk of terminating him nor resigning.
It went on to encourage Trevitt to apply for disability benefits from the company’s insurance carrier. The company then asked him to get his doctor to provide the company with clarification on when he might be able to return.
At trial, the company said it never assured Trevitt he would be foreman if and when he was able to return to work. But it did so for a number of reasons. It said Trevitt had said he could not return to work for safety reasons. And Trevitt was making unreasonable and arbitrary demands, and the company realized it needed to seek legal advice. The company said that, until Trevitt filed a lawsuit for constructive dismissal, he was never demoted or permanently replaced. He was entitled to return to Blanche as a mechanic or foreman if and when he was fit to do so, the company said.
You make the call
Was the worker constructively dismissed?
OR
Did the employer handle the termination properly?
If you said the employer handled the situation properly, you’re correct.
The main issue here was whether Blanche committed a fundamental breach of Trevitt’s employment contract. Trevitt claimed he had been demoted. While there is no doubt a demotion can amount to such a significant change in an employee’s role and status that it amounts to a fundamental breach of the employment contract, the employer here, despite Trevitt’s impressions, simply hadn’t demoted him.
“Viewed objectively, (the company) did nothing … that would amount to a clear and absolute refusal to abide by the terms of Mr. Trevitt’s employment contract,” said Justice Russell of the British Columbia Supreme Court. “A reasonable person could not conclude that (the company) intended to demote or replace Mr. Trevitt.”
The company was simply attempting to determine what roles and responsibilities Trevitt could assume if he were able to return to work. While the company had concerns about his ability to do his former job, it did not rule out the possibility he could return as foreman.
“Unfortunately, because he made ill-informed assumptions and relied upon precipitous advice, Mr. Trevitt failed to see (the company’s) conduct for what it was: a realistic attempt to deal with a difficult situation as it continued to develop,” said Justice Russell. Therefore, there was no constructive dismissal.
For more information see:
• Trevitt v. Blanche Equipment Rental Ltd., 2006 CarswellBC 79 (B.C. S.C.)
Just over a month after the accident, Blanche hired Tim Brown, initially as a temporary employee. The company hired Brown to fill in while Trevitt was gone because his absence had created a crisis. Two weeks after he was hired, Brown was made a permanent employee. He performed the same duties as Trevitt, and was called a foreman.
Trevitt claimed he was demoted at a meeting in mid-September 2004. Trevitt said he was told by management that if he came back to Blanche, he would have “a job” there. Trevitt noted that the company did not say “your” job.
There were a number of telephone calls between Trevitt and the company. The issue of a severance package was apparently brought up by Trevitt and so was the notion that he might have been constructively dismissed from his employment.
The company was a bit flabbergasted about the talk of severance and constructive dismissal. Following a number of telephone calls, the company sent him a letter on Feb. 9, 2005. It noted that conversations with him had centred on severance pay, even though there had been no talk of terminating him nor resigning.
It went on to encourage Trevitt to apply for disability benefits from the company’s insurance carrier. The company then asked him to get his doctor to provide the company with clarification on when he might be able to return.
At trial, the company said it never assured Trevitt he would be foreman if and when he was able to return to work. But it did so for a number of reasons. It said Trevitt had said he could not return to work for safety reasons. And Trevitt was making unreasonable and arbitrary demands, and the company realized it needed to seek legal advice. The company said that, until Trevitt filed a lawsuit for constructive dismissal, he was never demoted or permanently replaced. He was entitled to return to Blanche as a mechanic or foreman if and when he was fit to do so, the company said.
You make the call
Was the worker constructively dismissed?
OR
Did the employer handle the termination properly?
If you said the employer handled the situation properly, you’re correct.
The main issue here was whether Blanche committed a fundamental breach of Trevitt’s employment contract. Trevitt claimed he had been demoted. While there is no doubt a demotion can amount to such a significant change in an employee’s role and status that it amounts to a fundamental breach of the employment contract, the employer here, despite Trevitt’s impressions, simply hadn’t demoted him.
“Viewed objectively, (the company) did nothing … that would amount to a clear and absolute refusal to abide by the terms of Mr. Trevitt’s employment contract,” said Justice Russell of the British Columbia Supreme Court. “A reasonable person could not conclude that (the company) intended to demote or replace Mr. Trevitt.”
The company was simply attempting to determine what roles and responsibilities Trevitt could assume if he were able to return to work. While the company had concerns about his ability to do his former job, it did not rule out the possibility he could return as foreman.
“Unfortunately, because he made ill-informed assumptions and relied upon precipitous advice, Mr. Trevitt failed to see (the company’s) conduct for what it was: a realistic attempt to deal with a difficult situation as it continued to develop,” said Justice Russell. Therefore, there was no constructive dismissal.
For more information see:
• Trevitt v. Blanche Equipment Rental Ltd., 2006 CarswellBC 79 (B.C. S.C.)
