embarrassment or humiliation

Better the devil you know? employee’s obligation to accept an alternate position

April 22, 2014 Earl Altman Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll, Pensions and Benefits, Wages and Compensation

Ever since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2008 in a case Evans v. Teamsters Local Union, the courts have recognized the obligation of an employee, in certain circumstances, to accept an offer of alternate employment from their employer following dismissal. This has put many employees in the awkward position of determining whether or not the offer of employment is one that must be accepted based on the Evans’ reasoning. The difficulty faced by many employees’ counsel is the degree of difference in the position being offered, and whether such difference justifies the employee rejecting the offer of employment.

atmosphere of hostility, Bonus entitlement, breach of contract, change in compensation, comparable job, constructive dismissal, Dismissal, duty to mitigate, economic efficiency, embarrassment or humiliation, employee’s obligation to accept an alternate position, employee’s performance, employment law, Evans v. Teamsters Local Union, failure to mitigate, Farwell v. Citair Inc., HR Law, offer of employment, Purchasing Manager’s position, reasonable efforts to find a job, reporting requirements, salary and benefits, Supreme Court of Canada, termination, terminations, working conditions

When does a constructively dismissed employee have to remain in their employment?

December 10, 2012 Alison J. Bird Employment/Labour Standards, Human Resources, Payroll, Wages and Compensation

Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 661, there has been a great debate surrounding whether a constructively dismissed employee must remain in their employment with the dismissing employer in order to mitigate their damages. In that case, the Court found that in some circumstances, the duty to mitigate will require an employee to remain in their employment. However, an employee is not required to remain with the employer if he or she would be required to work in an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassment or humiliation.

constructive dismissal, constructively dismissed employee, duty to mitigate, embarrassment or humiliation, employment law, failure to mitigate, reasonable efforts, reasonable person, refusing to remain in one's employment, return to work for the dismissing employer, work in an atmosphere of hostility