You Make the Call
This instalment of You Make the Call features a worker who didn’t like the increased security changes at her work.
Spearing Service is an oilfield trucking service company based in Carlyle, Sask., that transports cargo such as crude oil, water, and natural gas liquids to various locations in southeastern Saskatchewan and Manitoba and operates specialty equipment such as hot oilers and pressure trucks at oilfield sites.
Melissa Paton was an employee of Spearing with the job title of parts and service. Her duties included looking after the stocking of parts for vehicles and equipment and reordering them when necessary, including negotiating prices with suppliers and shipping the parts where they were needed.
Spearing was acquired by a larger company, Mullen Group. Soon after the acquisition, there were questions over inventory controls, as the counts were significantly lower than the orders. There were record keeping errors and orders that weren’t completed, for which Paton was responsible.
Paton went on maternity leave. When she returned, Spearing was facing a downturn in the oil industry. The company cut some staff and Paton agreed to a salary cut to save her job — as did all remaining employees and managers. Her job title also changed from parts manager to just parts.
At the same time, Spearing implemented new inventory control and security procedures, including the hiring of an inventory control person, due to the inventory discrepancies that had been found. Under the new arrangement, Paton would have to check with inventory control before ordering new parts, so it could be determined if the parts were available at another Spearing location.
New security arrangements included the changing of locks and keys, which Paton felt hindered her ability to do her job efficiently — previously she had her own keys to access inventory, but now she had to obtain them from another office or other employees because fewer keys were available.
In November 2015, management met with Paton and the inventory control person. Paton wasn’t positive about the changes, but management reassured her that her job title and duties would not change significantly.
Paton applied for an open position of parts and fleet manager — a role with which she had worked closely for several years — but Spearing felt she didn’t have the experience or mechanic skills, so she didn’t receive an interview. Two weeks later, there were rumours Paton had said she was quitting, so the operating manager met with her. She complained about the absence of keys and the new inventory controls making it difficult to do her job. The manager told her that the inventory control process had changed but her duties and pay hadn’t — she was still responsible for ordering and shipping parts. Paton denied she was quitting, but said it might depend on how she was treated. According to Paton, she felt intimidated and bullied at the meetings as she was the only woman.
On Jan. 1, 2017, Paton gave written two weeks’ notice and didn’t show up for work on Jan. 6. She later claimed Spearing constructively dismissed her by changing her duties, cutting her pay, and demoting her.
Was Paton constructively dismissed?
OR
Were the employer’s changes reasonable?
If you said the employer’s changes were reasonable, you’re right. The adjudicator found that it was clear Spearing’s inventory control of the parts used in its operations was “seriously deficient.” It made sense that the company needed to make some changes in order to address this problem — for which Paton had not been blamed.
The changes that required Paton to check with inventory control to determine if required parts were available at another location, rather than negotiating with suppliers and ordering parts, amounted to a change in the process of managing the company’s inventory but not Paton’s main duties and responsibilities — she was still responsible for ordering parts. As for the change in security procedures, it may have made things more difficult for Paton, but again, her duties and responsibilities didn’t change significantly, said the adjudicator.
“The right of the company to ensure the security of its property is an inherent management right and obligation,” the adjudicator said. “As a result, it obviously was prepared to suffer the inconvenience and inefficiencies of Ms. Paton in achieving that goal.”
The adjudicator also found that the reduction in Paton’s salary was voluntary and had been taken by all employees and managers at Spearing due to the economic conditions in the oil industry at the time. Since she agreed to it, it couldn’t be used as an argument for constructive dismissal, said the adjudicator.
In addition, the job title change had no bearing on Paton’s job, as her essential duties didn’t change and she didn’t supervise any staff, said the adjudicator in finding there was no demotion.
Given that Paton expressed her intention to resign in written form on Jan. 1, 2017, the arbitrator determined that she was not constructively dismissed and instead resigned from her employment.
For more information see:
• Paton and Spearing Service L.P., Re, 2018 CarswellNat 914 (Can. Lab. Code Adj.).
