In another blow to dismissed employees. a B.C. court has reduced the wrongful dismissal damages that would have been owing to an employee after the employee failed to return to work when “recalled.” This follows a number of decisions across Canada including cases in Ontario, B.C. and even at the Supreme Court. It has become quite clear that if an employee refuses to return to work when asked to return, even after being wrongfully dismissed, it may be very risky for the employee to refuse.
In the case of Hooge v. Gillwood Remanufacturing Inc., the plaintiff was a 36 year employee, working as a production supervisor at the time of dismissal. He was put on a “lay off” by his employer without any advance notice or pay. The defendant company claimed that it had the right to “lay off” the employee under the B.C. Employment Standards Act. The plaintiff alleged that he had been dismissed and sued for wrongful dismissal. One week after he filed his lawsuit, the employer purported to “recall” him back to work.
At trial, the B.C. Supreme Court held that the employee had in fact been constructively dismissed. The plaintiff had not had a written employment contract in place. When he was put on a lay off, he was told that it was “indefinite” and that there were no plans to recall him. He was given an ROE that said “shortage of work.” The B.C. court agreed with the plaintiff that there was no term of his employment that would have permitted a “lay off” without pay after all of these years of employment. He was, in fact, constructively dismissed and was entitled to eighteen months’ compensation.
However, the Court proceeded to look at the issue of mitigation. “The law is clear that in certain circumstances an employee who declines an offer of re-employment from the same employer after having been dismissed, whether actually or constructively, may be found to failed to mitigate his damages, and have any award reduced on account of such failure to mitigate.” As long as it would have been “reasonable” in all of the circumstances for the plaintiff to return to work, he or she may be obligated to do so. The court discussed Evans. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31 as well as other B.C. cases including Davies v. Fraser Collection Services Ltd. 2008 B.C.S.C. 942 and Besse v. Dr. A.S. Machner Inc. 2009 BCSC 1216.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not establish acrimony, mistreatment, belittling, embarrassing actions or undermining of authority in the workplace. The court concluded that the plaintiff should have returned to the same position, on the same terms and conditions, at the same rate of pay. Here is the court’s reasoning:
“It seems to me that an employer who has laid-off an employee, or wrongfully terminated an employee without due notice, may very well come to the conclusion, particularly with the benefit of legal advice that its actions constituted a wrongful dismissal and may seek to mitigate its own exposure to the payment of damages by offering to re-hire the employee.”
Here, the court held that the plaintiff should have returned to work.
Fortunately, in this case, all was not lost for the plaintiff. The defendant locked out its unionized employees and ceased operations approximately seven months after purporting to recall the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff would not have been paid during the lock-out, so he would not have been able to mitigate his damages during that time period. Nevertheless, he was docked 7 1/2 months’ pay for the time period during which he would have been able to work if he had returned to work when recalled.
This case, from a B.C. perspective, reinforces the interpretation of Evans that has become the law across Canada. Employees who are fired, laid-off or otherwise dismissed – and then offered a return to work – even after they file a lawsuit, must be very careful in deciding how to answer the employer’s offer. Refusing to return to work and then continuing a lawsuit can be very costly.
There is something to be said for the notion that employers might have made a mistake and should be entitled to reverse a decision and have an employee come back to work. After all, in the unionized context, an employee can be reinstated.
However, more often than not, this type of case will simply be used by a range of employers looking to play games. Employers can try to “lay off” employees without offering anything. Then, if the employee sues, they can “recall” the employee. This gives employers a way to try firing someone while minimizing the risk of owing any severance. It seems to open up the door to all kinds of abuses by the types of employers that might choose to act unethically. Certainly, there are situations in which employers may have a good faith “change of heart” or are otherwise justified in changing their minds and reversing a decision to dismiss an employee.
But that does not necessarily seem to be the case in many of the situations I see. This line of case law creates uncertainty, economic and emotional stress for employees, and also makes it difficult to settle some cases reasonably, both from an employee and employer perspective. Nevertheless, employees who ignore these decisions may be making a very costly mistake.