Editor’s note: This case summary is written from an automated translation from the original French documents.
Quebec’s Administrative Labour Tribunal dismissed two complaints filed by a former channel development manager at Intrado Canada Inc. and West Safety Services Canada Inc., ruling that his departure from the company was a voluntary resignation and not the result of constructive dismissal or a prohibited practice under Quebec’s Act respecting labour standards (ALS).
Administrative Judge Mylène Alder found insufficient evidence to support J.M.’s claim that his employer substantially altered his compensation agreement for 2019, or that he was subjected to psychological harassment. The ruling, issued on December 10, 2024, concluded that J.M. resigned freely following a dispute over unpaid commissions and did not allow the employer to complete its investigation into his harassment allegations.
Background of the complaints
J.M., who joined the employer in 2013, filed his complaints in September 2019, alleging constructive dismissal and psychological harassment. He claimed his employer unilaterally denied him nearly $250,000 in commission payments for a major Verizon contract and subjected him to harassment designed to force his resignation.
The employer countered that J.M. had freely resigned, maintained that no harassment occurred, and argued that his remuneration plan for 2019 entitled him only to a $40,000 SPIFF (Sales Performance Incentive Fund), not the larger commission he claimed.
Disputed compensation terms
At the heart of the case was a disagreement over J.M.’s 2019 compensation plan. The tribunal examined conflicting evidence, including two versions of an email exchange about the plan. The employer’s version, supported by forensic analysis, indicated that J.M.’s entitlement for the Verizon contract was limited to the $40,000 SPIFF.
“The evidence strongly supports the employer’s version of the email as authentic,” wrote Alder, citing independent forensic reports that deemed the employer’s documentation more reliable. The tribunal also noted that J.M. had signed the 2019 compensation plan without raising objections to the SPIFF provision at the time.
The tribunal found no evidence of substantial changes to J.M.’s remuneration, determining that the 2019 plan remained consistent with prior agreements, adjusted for currency conversion.
Harassment allegations
J.M. alleged a toxic work environment stemming from a strained relationship with his superior, L.D., which he claimed constituted psychological harassment. However, the tribunal ruled that the employer acted promptly and appropriately when J.M. raised concerns in mid-2019.
The tribunal highlighted that J.M. failed to cooperate with an external investigation initiated by the employer to address his complaints. “By resigning without participating in the investigation, the complainant cannot fault the employer for failing to address his allegations,” Alder wrote.
Findings and dismissal of complaints
The tribunal concluded that J.M.’s resignation was voluntary, driven by his dissatisfaction with the compensation dispute rather than a constructive dismissal. “A reasonable person in the same situation would not have concluded that the employer demonstrated an intention to no longer be bound by the employment contract,” the decision stated.
Similarly, J.M.’s claim under Section 122 of the ALS, alleging prohibited practice, was dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that his resignation was linked to exercising his rights under the ALS.
For more information, see Miller v. Intrado Canada inc. / West Safety Services Canada Inc., 2024 QCTAT 4441 (CanLII).
