Employer’s Unreasonable Increase in Duties and Response to Employee Concerns Constitutes Constructive Dismissal

July 15, 2014

Often constructive dismissal cases involving a change in duties arise from an employer’s unilateral reduction in an employee’s duties. However, Damaso v. PSI Peripheral Solutions Inc., 2013 ONSC 6923 is just the opposite. An employee alleged that an employer’s unilateral increase in his duties resulted in his constructive dismissal.

After working as a service technician for ten years, Damaso was appointed as the employer’s IT Administrator in 2009. This required him to take on duties in addition to his prior responsibilities without receiving any corresponding increase in salary.

In early 2010, approximately one year after the changes were imposed, Damaso began to ask the employer for a pay raise to compensate him for the additional duties. He also complained that he was overworked. In February, 2011, Damaso again outlined his concerns regarding workload and salary. The employer took the position that they had not increased his duties beyond his initial job description and refused to give him a raise.

In April, 2011, Damaso took the position that he would not perform the new duties that were imposed in 2009 because he was overworked. In May, 2011, the employer gave Damaso a termination letter which provided him with 12 months’ working notice. It set out the job responsibilities that Damaso was to perform, which included the new duties that were imposed in 2009. Damaso’s family doctor then placed him on disability leave until September, 2011.

On September 26, 2011, Damaso wrote to the employer and took the position that he had been constructively dismissed.

In the constructive dismissal action, the employer put forward three arguments: (1) there were no changes in Damaso’s duties; (2) in the alternative, Damaso had condoned the changes by performing the new duties without objection between 2009 and 2010; (3) in the further alternative, Damaso fully mitigated his damages by continuing to work for the employer between January, 2010 (the date of his first objection to the duties) and May, 2011. The Court rejected the employer’s arguments and found that Damaso had been constructively dismissed.

The Court accepted that the employer had some latitude to make changes to Damaso’s job description as its business changed and evolved. However, the employer did not have the right to demand that Damaso perform all of his original duties and all of the new duties which were not contemplated in his job description. The Court concluded that the addition of the new duties overburdened him to the extent that he was unable to complete all of the required tasks.

Interestingly, the Court found that the constructive dismissal did not take place in 2009 when the duties were first imposed, but in May, 2011 when the employer provided Damaso with 12 months’ working notice of termination. In the termination letter, the employer stated that Damaso would be required to perform all of his original duties and all of the new duties. The Court found that “this demand took place notwithstanding the fact that Damaso had reasonably indicated that he could not perform all of these duties.” Further, the employer had changed the passwords for its internal computer system, which prevented Damaso from performing the new duties unless someone else logged him into the system. The Court held that it was unreasonable to not only demand that he continue to perform both the original and the new duties, but also that he perform the new duties without having independent access to the computer system. Further, the Court held that the employer’s hostility towards Damaso, and the demand that he perform the new duties without the necessary passwords, resulted in a humiliating situation to Damaso and reflected a clear demotion.

The Court found that Damaso was entitled to damages equivalent to 12 months of pay in lieu of notice of termination.
This case is a good reminder to employers to be cautious both in making changes to an employee’s duties and in responding to the employee’s concerns regarding the changes. Rather than finding that the initial imposition of new duties constituted constructive dismissal (which would have raised issues regarding the employee’s condonation of the changes), the Court found that the dismissal occurred 2.5 years later. The Court expressed disapproval for the employer’s hostile conduct and the additional limitations it imposed on the employee’s ability to perform his duties. This raises the suggestion that perhaps if the employer had been more reasonable in its negotiations with the employee, it may had a stronger defence to the claim of constructive dismissal.

Related Services

Employment & Labour

Related Articles

Parties, Cocktails & Cannabis – the Triple Threat for Host Liability

This is the first holiday season in the post-legalization of cannabis era. If, as an employer, you are planning a holiday gathering, you should be aware that you may be exposing your company to significant financial liability for the actions of an impaired guest. The concept of host liability is not new, but with the […]

read more

Deducting Collateral Benefits From Loss of Income Claims

On Tuesday, November 20, a panel of Cox & Palmer insurance lawyers from across the region presented our Advance 2018 Insurance Law Webinar, which covered the latest on the Common law and Legislative law approaches to deductibility related to loss of income claims. As part of the webinar materials, we prepared a paper and a handout, which we have linked below for your reference. We have also provided a link to the full webinar, which you can view and listen to at your convenience.

read more

In Callidus we “Trust” – The SCC Rules on the Deemed Trust Provisions of the Excise Tax Act and Overturns the Federal Court of Appeal Ruling in Callidus Capital Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen

Callidus Capital Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 SCC 47 (SCC) Callidus was a secured creditor of Cheese Factory Road Holdings Inc. Pursuant to a trust agreement, Cheese Factory held all funds received in trust for Callidus and remitted them to be applied to its debt. The amounts paid to Callidus under this arrangement […]

read more
view all
Cox & Palmer publications are intended to provide information of a general nature only and not legal advice. The information presented is current to the date of publication and may be subject to change following the publication date.