Labor & Employment Law

This was a constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff, a delivery driver, claimed that he had been constructively dismissed because he was being forced to take on a second job of packer and shipper.  The employer argued (successfully as it turned out) that the plaintiff was not being asked to take on a second job that would add 2-3 hours to his day, as he alleged, but that he was being asked to comply with a verification and sign off policy that the employer had implemented because of inventory issues.  The Court reviewed the evidence and concluded that the employee had been terminated "because he refused to comply with company policy that required him to sign off on product pick-ups."

The case is important in a number of respects not the least of which is that the court found that it was an implied term of the employee's employment agreement "that he would comply with all reasonable and appropriate company directives regarding the product delivery system."   In other words, implicit in most employment arrangement is the requirement of flexibility, rather than rigidity, in job duties.  That said, there are cases where an addition or diminution of duties and responsibilities could trigger a constructive dismissal.  This was not one of those cases. 

Furthermore, the court found that:

Clearly communicating the expectations is key to invoking just cause on the basis of disobedience.  These are not easy cases but the evidence in this case was quite polarized and the court had to chose between the conflicting versions of events.