Doug MacLeod, MacLeod Law Firm
Lately, I have fielded several calls from employers about AWOL employees.
Some of the employees took a leave when COVID first hit and haven’t been heard from since. Some of the employees were on a sick leave and have not updated the employer on their medical status for a very long time.
Usually the employer has recently tried to follow up with the employee but can’t connect with the employee by phone or email. At this point, I get a call and the question I hear is: “Has the employee abandoned his (or her) employment?” or words to that effect.
This blog summarizes the Hettrick v Triple F Paving case which recently considered this issue.
After being off work for two years because of sickness, the 73 year old plaintiff, Ms. Hettrick, told her employer she was ready to return to work. When she requested the sick leave she clearly communicated her desire to return to work when able and her expectation that “all duties and responsibilities” associated with her job “will be fully reinstated”. The employee never provided the employer with a doctor’s note to support her leave request.
Because she did not provide a medical note to justify the sick leave and because she had not updated the employer on her status for 2 years the employer said she had abandoned her job and refused to permit her to return to work.
The judge found as a fact that the employer did not tell the employee that a medical certificate was required for the medical leave to be approved.
As far as the employer’s job abandonment argument is concerned, the judge quoted another case which stated: “…where there is confusion or uncertainty over whether an employee abandoned his engagement, the onus is on the employer to clarify with the employee whether he or she quit.”
The judge concluded: “I find that Triple F has not established that Ms Hettricks’s words or conduct clearly and unequivocally indicated an intention to abandon her employment.”
Lessons to be Learned:
Employees can be dismissed for cause, and therefore without notice or severance, when their misconduct or performance is so egregious that the employment relationship has been irreparably harmed. In assessing this issue, employers must adopt a contextual approach, which considers not only the misconduct in question, but the entirety of the employment relationship.
Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation
This year’s Ontario Employment Law Conference co-sponsored by First Reference and Stringer Brisbin Humphrey on June 2, 2010, will touch on several topics of importance to employers. The first topic on the Agenda will provide employers with guidance on a significant court decision and changes in court procedures affecting the termination process. Specifically it should help employers minimize claims arising from the termination process.
Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor
This year, Canada Day (July 1) falls on a Thursday. Unlike some public holidays, which shift dates in order to provide a long weekend, Canada Day is to be celebrated on the day it falls. This year, there has been much discussion of the fact that it creates a situation in which many people have Thursday off, and are then expected to return to work for one day before enjoying their weekend.
Rudner Law, Employment / HR Law & Mediation