Quitting Employee Leaves Money on the Table

By Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

Sometimes, when a period of employment comes to an end, the answers to why or how it ended become especially relevant. For example, under employment standards legislation, an employee may seek a payment on termination to which they are disentitled because of the facts leading to the breakdown in the employment relationship. This occurred recently in 2023 BCEST 17 (CanLII), where the British Columbia Employment Standards Tribunal refused the appeal of a worker who sought “length of service” compensation after finding that he quit his job. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Background

The appellant employee was a truck driver earning $21 per hour. On the day he returned to work from an injury, he met with management and discussed the paperwork he would need to submit for his return. He retrieved the papers from his vehicle, left them in the office and left the workplace, never to return.

He sent a text message to his manager saying, “You can just stick my last cheque and paperwork in the mail. Thank you.”

Unsure how to process this, the manager wrote him back to inquire whether he had quit his job. When there was no response, the employer issued a Record of Employment showing the employee had quit, and, in an accompanying letter, asked the employee to return company property. Again, there was no response from the employee.

The proper characterization of how the employment relationship ended came to a head when the employee claimed “length of service” pay under the British Columbia Employment Standards Act. Under this legislation, employees who are dismissed without just cause are entitled to one or more weeks’ wages on a sliding scale depending on the number of consecutive months or years they worked. The crux of the dispute was the provision that exempted the employer from making the payment to any employee who “terminates the employment, retires from employment or is dismissed for just cause.”

The Tribunal’s decision

The Tribunal ultimately sided with the initial decision maker, a delegate of the Director of Employment Standards, who focused on the legal test for determining whether an employee has quit or resigned. This test has two distinct parts: an objective one that looks for affirmative steps the employee took to show they quit their job, and a subjective one that seeks to determine if the employee meant to quit.

Turning to the facts, it was clear to both decision-makers that the subjective component was satisfied by the employee’s text message, his failure to respond and his leaving the workplace abruptly without doing any work.

Objectively, these same factors weighed in favour of a finding that he’d quit. Additionally, there was no evidence the employee was ever told he’d been terminated and the employee had no paper evidence backing up his termination story.

The employee also raised a procedural fairness issue respecting a separate decision pertaining to an accommodation issue, but the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction over that matter, which wasn’t relevant to the question of whether the employee had quit.

Key takeaway

The proper characterization of a quit or a resignation can have significant financial ramifications for both parties. Keeping in mind the subjective and objective parts of the legal test when faced with these situations, an employer can better gauge what its liabilities might be under the legislation in its jurisdiction.