The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has dismissed a former traffic control worker’s claim of constructive dismissal against Coast to Coast Traffic Solutions Limited (C2C) after he was demoted and chose to resign.
The tribunal found that the worker was not forced to resign and was not entitled to severance pay.
E.Z., the applicant, had been employed by C2C since March 2022 as both a Traffic Control Person (TCP) and a Lane Control Technician (LCT), earning $25 and $30 per hour respectively. His employment was marked by an incident involving a vehicle damage claim, which led to a confrontation with C2C’s CEO when E.Z. contacted the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) personally. This interaction became a pivotal point in the case.
On Sept. 2, 2022, following the communication with ICBC, the CEO informed E.Z. that he “was not fit” for LCT work due to “too many mistakes” and that he would be working solely as a TCP “moving forward.” In response, E.Z. resigned immediately, claiming he had been constructively dismissed and was entitled to $2,000 in severance pay.
E.Z. argued that the demotion constituted a fundamental change to his employment contract, effectively breaching its terms and forcing him to resign. However, the tribunal did not agree with his interpretation of the events.
The CRT found that while E.Z.’s role as an LCT was reduced, he continued to work as a TCP, and there was no written contract guaranteeing him a specific number of hours in either position. “The tenor of the parties’ messages was that C2C would place (E.Z.) in LCT positions when available, but otherwise he would work as a TCP,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal determined that the decision to have E.Z. continue as a TCP was not a fundamental breach of his employment contract. “On balance, I find (the) decision to have (E.Z.) continue as a TCP was not a fundamental breach,” the ruling stated. “As a result, I find (he) was not constructively dismissed.”
Further complicating E.Z.’s case was his voluntary resignation. The tribunal highlighted that C2C continued to offer him work as a TCP, a position he was originally hired for, and thus his resignation was not forced. “I do not accept that (E.Z.) had no option but to resign,” the tribunal wrote. “In fact, C2C continued to offer (him) work shifts as a TCP, as he was hired for. I find (E.Z.’s) resignation was voluntary.”
The tribunal also addressed other claims made by E.Z., including allegations of a retaliatory and unsafe work environment, which he argued contravened WorkSafeBC regulations. However, the tribunal noted that these issues fell under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board and were not addressed in this ruling.
E.Z. also mentioned his sleep apnea in the context of a human rights claim, suggesting it raised concerns about his ability to operate vehicles safely, but no documentation relating to this claim was provided, and the tribunal made no findings on this matter.
Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed E.Z.’s claims, including his request for reimbursement of tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses, due to lack of success and insufficient evidence.
For more information, see Zaharia v. Coast to Coast Traffic Solutions, 2024 BCCRT 774 (CanLII).
