The Court recently released its decision in McMillan v. Selectrucks. Mr. McMillan worked for Selectrucks as a salesman from 2004 to 2007, at which point he gave two weeks' notice. Selectrucks sent him home immediately and paid him out the two weeks' notice he had given. (This is a common practice for many employers.) Mr. McMillan started another job within two weeks.
McMillan developed a strong customer base and was successful in his role. Then, a fellow salesman (Mr. Kenny) was promoted to a managerial role over him. It is not uncommon that such a change in reporting structure can foment such conflict as to make the continued employment relationship untenable, generating a constructive dismissal. Mr. McMillan contended, unsuccessfully, that this is what happened in this instance.
His arguments included several factors:
(1) Mr. Kenny breached company policy by permitting alcohol consumption in the workplace, and this made Mr. McMillan uncomfortable because he has had alcoholics in his family. The Court did not accept that such conduct by Mr. Kenny would really affect the contractual relationship with Mr. McMillan.
(2) Mr. Kenny gave preferential treatment to another employee by assisting him to develop a client base, thus hurting Mr. McMillan's earning potential. Perhaps true, yet in context it was evident that Mr. Kenny usually assisted new salespeople (and this other employee was new to the sales role) - and that had included Mr. McMillan when he started - to develop a client base. Ultimately, given that Mr. McMillan's earnings were still increasing, it was pretty clear that Mr. Kenny wasn't seriously undercutting Mr. McMillan's earnings, even if he was perhaps showing favouritism to this other employee.
(3) Mr. McMillan accused Mr. Kenny of abusive and improper treatment. The Court dealt with most of these as being symptomatic of a difference in style - Mr. McMillan was accustomed to a more civil atmosphere in car dealerships, and was unaccustomed to the 'macho' atmosphere in a commercial truck dealership: The Court ultimately seems pretty accepting of Mr. Kenny's "rough" management style in context.
I also note that the employer made an argument that Mr. McMillan's failure to complain should bar allegations of constructive dismissal, whereas Mr. McMillan explained that he was afraid of reprisals if he had gone over Mr. Kenny's head. The Court embarks on a thorough analysis of that issue: The fear of reprisals is understandable, and it is a matter of common sense that an employee should not complain lightly about their manager. That being said, if Mr. Kenny's conduct was already making the employment relationship intolerable, there was little to be lost by doing so. (I have had occasions to give employee clients exactly the same advice. While employees are often more afraid to complain than they are to simply quit, if the alternative is quitting then there is absolutely nothing to be lost by pursuing a complaint first. If they get recourse, then that is great. If not, then they're in the same position, except with perhaps a somewhat stronger constructive dismissal argument).
However, in the full context of a small work environment in which Mr. McMillan was an outsider, the Court concluded that it was understandable that he hadn't complained, and this wasn't a full bar to a constructive dismissal claim. I note that these events all took place prior to Bill 168, and I wonder how that Bill would change the analysis.
There was more serious misconduct. Mr. Kenny brushed off Mr. McMillan's concerns about not getting proper statutory holiday pay, and then was upset when Mr. McMillan did go over Mr. Kenny's head. However, with no evidence of actual reprisal (perhaps just a souring of the relationship), it was hard to say that it constituted constructive dismissal.
Worse, Mr. Kenny once took Mr. McMillan in "a bearhug or a headlock", after Mr. McMillan understandably said something unflattering about the Habs. It was horseplay, but unwelcome horseplay, and therefore an assault. The Court is highly critical of this behaviour: "it is hard to imagine a professional work environment where that would be appropriate. These people were not adolescent boys in the schoolyard."
Yet, given the full context, including the fact that it was not close to the time of Mr. McMillan's resignation, and that Mr. McMillan could not be said to fear further violence, this assault did not create a constructive dismissal despite its seriousness.
None of the conduct could be said to go to the heart of the employment contract, so there was no constructive dismissal. While the relationship may have soured, giving rise to Mr. McMillan's decision to find employment elsewhere, none of Mr. Kenny's conduct repudiated the contract.
I very much like Justice Corbett's analysis in this case. The one aspect that cause me concern is that there is, perhaps, too much casual acceptance of otherwise inappropriate conduct as being acceptable machismo in the context of the specific work environment. Where an employer dismisses an employee for just cause, it is a defence for the employee to respond that the alleged misconduct was "condoned" by the employer, that it was common practice within the workplace. So if there's a culture that condones profanity, it's hard to fire an employee for swearing. Yet this decision seems to apply the principle in reverse: It was acceptable to treat Mr. McMillan in harsh and unprofessional ways because it was common in the culture of the workplace? The subtext is that an employer can expect its employees to grow thicker skins, depending on the culture of the workplace. Especially in light of Bill 168, that is clearly not true now, but I don't really think it was true then, either.
Yet, at the end of the day, the conclusion that Mr. McMillan was nonetheless very successful in his position, and that the overall tension between him and his manager did not amount to a constructive dismissal, appears to be well-supported on the facts.
This blog is not intended to and does not provide legal advice to any person in respect of any particular legal issue, and does not create a solicitor-client relationship with any readers, but rather provides general legal information. If you have a legal issue or possible legal issue, contact a lawyer.