In Bohémier v. Andritz Hydro Canada Inc., the Administrative Labour Tribunal dismissed two complaints filed against the employer. The case illustrates a particular situation in which two distinct terminations of employment occurred in succession: the first, announced by the employer by way of a nine-month working notice period, and the second, resulting from the employee’s resignation before the expiry of that notice period, allegedly caused by constructive dismissal on the part of the employer. The Tribunal was therefore seized of complaints filed under sections 122 and 124 of the Act respecting labour standards, relating solely to the second alleged termination of employment.
Two terminations to distinguish
On October 11, 2022, Andritz informed the employee that her employment would end on July 11, 2023. This decision was based on a contractual clause allowing the employer to terminate the contract without cause, subject to a notice period whose length varied according to seniority.
The Tribunal noted that this contractual clause did not exempt the employer from article 124 of the Act respecting labour standards. The employee could therefore have contested the initial termination, but did not. The complaints she filed on January 25 and 26, 2023, instead targeted the termination that occurred on January 20, 2023, which arose from a resignation alleged to be a manifestation of constructive dismissal.
This distinction is central, since the first announced termination remains legally distinct from the termination that occurred during the notice period. The Tribunal therefore limited its analysis to the second termination of the employment relationship, namely that of January 20, 2023.
An application of the Asphalte Desjardins decision
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Commission des normes du travail v. Asphalte Desjardins Inc., the Tribunal noted that giving notice does not immediately terminate the contract. The contract remains in full force and effect until the announced expiry date, and each party remains bound to fulfill its obligations.
For employers, the key takeaway is that a working notice period maintains the employment relationship rather than suspending it. As long as the notice period has not expired, the contract remains in effect, and a new termination may occur. In this case, the Tribunal therefore had to determine whether the termination of January 20, 2023, amounted to a resignation or a constructive dismissal.
The alleged crescendo did not establish constructive dismissal
The employee argued that her resignation was not free and voluntary, citing a crescendo of management actions and decisions following the announcement of the first termination. She alleged, in general terms, that certain management practices had become more restrictive and that her working conditions and work environment had deteriorated.
The Tribunal examined these elements both individually and as a whole. It found neither a substantial change to an essential condition of the contract nor a series of actions that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the employer sought to hasten the employee’s departure before July 2023.
The Tribunal noted, however, that several of the allegations were not established by the evidence, while others fell within the legitimate exercise of managerial rights. Whether considered individually or as a whole, the events raised did not meet the threshold required to establish constructive dismissal.
An attempt to negotiate a departure, followed by a resignation
The timeline surrounding the second termination was determinative. Before leaving, the employee had begun looking for a job and was set to begin a new job just days after the date she had chosen for her resignation.
She also sought to negotiate with Andritz the terms of an early departure before the notice period expired. While her request remained under review, she ultimately submitted a notice of resignation, setting her own departure date as January 20, 2023.
The inclusion of reservations in the notice did not alter its nature. The Tribunal found a clear and voluntary resignation, a conclusion further supported by the employee’s subsequent conduct, notably her adherence to the departure date she had chosen and her prompt start with a new employer.
According to the Tribunal, it was not any pressure exerted by Andritz that prompted her departure, but rather the timeline associated with her new job. The employee had hoped to secure a negotiated exit; in the absence of an offer within the hoped-for timeframe, she chose to resign instead.
Conclusion
The decision confirms that a working notice period does not immediately terminate the contract or suspend the employment relationship. Following Asphalte Desjardins, the parties’ rights and obligations remain in effect until the notice period expires, meaning the employment relationship may be terminated in the interim.
For employers, the decision also confirms that an accumulation of irritants or management disagreements is not, on its own, sufficient to transform a resignation into a constructive dismissal. The analysis remains objective: it must be established that there was a substantial change in an essential condition of the contract, or that employer conduct, considered as a whole, is incompatible with the continuation of the employment relationship. Since this was not proven, the Tribunal concluded that the second termination resulted from a resignation and dismissed the complaint for dismissal without good and sufficient cause.