Worker suspended without pay was constructively dismissed
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court’s ruling that Christina Carscallen, a marketing executive who was suspended without pay and demoted in 2003, was constructively dismissed.
As reported in the July 20, 2005, issue of Canadian Employment Law Today, Carscallen got into a spat with her boss at FRI Corporation after a problem involving the shipping of the company’s booth and materials from Toronto to a conference in Barcelona.
Carscallen was suspended and was not told of the duration of the suspension or whether her salary would be continued. She was then demoted and had her flex hours and office taken away.
The company had no policy on suspensions, and there was nothing in Carscallen’s employment agreement that allowed for it. The issue before the lower court was whether an implied term authorizing unpaid suspensions should be read into the employment relationship. The lower court said there wasn’t, and the Court of Appeal saw nothing wrong with that conclusion.
“The historical discipline of the employee did not include unpaid suspensions from work of uncertain duration,” the Court of Appeal said. “In addition, the suspension at issue was inconsistent with the rehabilitative and progressive disciplinary measures contemplated under the employer’s HR policies.”
For more information see:
• Carscallen v. FRI Corp., 2006 CarswellOnt 5517 (Ont. C.A.).
Related articles
Suspending white-collar employees
An in-depth look at a recent case that shows why courts frown upon suspensions without pay. In this case the judge also commented on why it may never be practical to suspend a senior employee
As reported in the July 20, 2005, issue of Canadian Employment Law Today, Carscallen got into a spat with her boss at FRI Corporation after a problem involving the shipping of the company’s booth and materials from Toronto to a conference in Barcelona.
Carscallen was suspended and was not told of the duration of the suspension or whether her salary would be continued. She was then demoted and had her flex hours and office taken away.
The company had no policy on suspensions, and there was nothing in Carscallen’s employment agreement that allowed for it. The issue before the lower court was whether an implied term authorizing unpaid suspensions should be read into the employment relationship. The lower court said there wasn’t, and the Court of Appeal saw nothing wrong with that conclusion.
“The historical discipline of the employee did not include unpaid suspensions from work of uncertain duration,” the Court of Appeal said. “In addition, the suspension at issue was inconsistent with the rehabilitative and progressive disciplinary measures contemplated under the employer’s HR policies.”
For more information see:
• Carscallen v. FRI Corp., 2006 CarswellOnt 5517 (Ont. C.A.).
Related articles
Suspending white-collar employees
An in-depth look at a recent case that shows why courts frown upon suspensions without pay. In this case the judge also commented on why it may never be practical to suspend a senior employee
