In a recent decision 1, the Tribunal administratif du travail (the "Tribunal") determined that although an employee resigned in anger, the resignation was final and in fact reflected the employee's conduct and intentions during the final weeks of his employment. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the employee's complaint for dismissal without good and sufficient cause.
What happened?
The employee held a sales representative position at an automobile dealership. While it was the employee's duty to greet the customer, while doing so he was interrupted by the director of sales who claimed to have a scheduled appointment with said customer. Furious, the employee went to the general manager's office to complain about the situation. During this discussion, the tone of voice rose between the two speakers. The employee then threatened to resign, to which the general manager replied that he was free to do so. Afterwards, the employee calmed down, confirmed his resignation to the general manager and handed over his keys. At the same time, he also requested that a note other than "voluntary departure" be placed on his record of employment. Following these events, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging dismissal without just and sufficient cause.
What did the Tribunal decide?
In determining the validity of a resignation, courts will consider various criteria, including the following:
- Resignation must be voluntary;
- Resignation is assessed differently depending on whether the intention to resign is expressed;
- An intention to resign is presumed only if the employee's conduct is inconsistent with another interpretation;
- The expression of their intention to resign is not necessarily conclusive as to the employee's true intention;
- Past and future conduct of the parties is relevant in assessing whether there is a resignation.2
The Tribunal was of the opinion that the employee's attitude in the moments following the tumultuous encounter was a clear indicator that he had left his employment voluntarily and was not dismissed. The fact that the employee gathered his belongings before leaving and that a few witnesses heard the employee say he was leaving his employment were helpful indicators in deciding between the employer's and the plaintiff's version. They found that the employee's behaviour was not ambiguous.
The employee's conduct before and after the events was essential in analyzing whether there was a valid resignation. Although the employee was angry when he resigned, this did not automatically vitiate his consent. The situation must be assessed in the context of the and considering the circumstances around the resignation. In this case, the employee's actions in the weeks following the resignation confirmed that his decision had not been made on a whim. The employer invited him to return to work, but the employee refused.
Considering all of the above-mentioned factors, while the employee may have regretted his decision, the Tribunal concluded that he voluntarily left his employment and rejected the complaint of dismissal.
Takeaway
In order to determine whether a resignation is given with free and enlightened consent and whether it is final, a series of factors must be taken into consideration, including the employee's conduct at the time of the resignation and in the weeks preceding and following the decision. It is particularly necessary to analyze whether the resignation was given out of anger and the employee's psychological state at the time of resignation.
This case serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of ensuring the psychological state of the employee as well as the precise factual context in which a resignation is given, as these are crucial elements analyzed by the courts in relation to dismissal complaints filed following an ambiguous departure.
Footnotes
1. Lanthier c. 1857-2123 Québec inc. 2023 QCTAT 542.
2. upra, para. 11.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
