A Nova Scotia labour board has dismissed a mechanic’s complaint of dismissal without cause, ruling the employer met its obligations under the Labour Standards Code by offering a reasonable transfer to another dealership within the same automotive group.
The board concluded that while the employer, 3231040 Nova Scotia Ltd., doing business as Atlantic Kia, failed to professionally communicate the transfer, it did not terminate the mechanic’s employment or constructively dismiss him. Instead, it offered him comparable work at a sister location, satisfying section 72(3)(e) of the Code.
“The offer to have the Complainant move to Albion, while poorly executed, met s. 72(3)(e) of the Code of being other reasonable employment,” the board said.
Background of the complaint
The complainant, P.W., is a long-serving mechanic with decades of experience, including work at various dealerships within the Mike Allen Auto Group. He had most recently been working at the Atlantic Kia location.
Following a period of health issues, P.W. requested an accommodation in early 2023 to reduce his work week to three days and avoid lifting items heavier than 60 pounds. The employer granted the accommodation. However, by mid-2023, Kia Canada was exerting pressure on the dealership to maximize its output of warranty work, and the reduced schedule left one of its four bays underutilized.
On Sept. 26, 2023, P.W. was informed by the Kia manager of a possible transfer to Albion, an affiliated automotive shop located across the street. The parties disputed the nature of that meeting — whether it was a phone call or in person — and what exactly was said. P.W. expressed concerns about the potential physical demands of the Albion role, particularly around lifting requirements.
When he returned to work on Oct. 2, 2023, P.W. discovered his tool chest had been moved and another mechanic was working in his assigned bay. Feeling blindsided and humiliated, he confronted the manager and left the dealership. He did not return.
P.W. subsequently filed a complaint under section 23 of the Labour Standards Code, asserting that he was dismissed without cause or, alternatively, constructively dismissed.
Flawed communication, but no dismissal
The board found that while the dealership mishandled the communication of the transfer, it had not terminated P.W.’s employment. The transfer had not been confirmed prior to Oct. 2, 2023, and no formal written offer was provided. Nonetheless, P.W. had been advised of the possibility of a transfer and was told to consider it.
“The Respondent did not appreciate the significance of the Complainant’s toolbox being moved and his working area taken over by a new mechanic,” the board said, likening it to “an office worker arriving to their office and having their name removed from the door, their personal effects gathered in a box and someone seated at their desk.”
Despite the employer’s lack of clarity, the board held that P.W. was aware or ought to have been aware that a position at Albion was available to him. There was evidence that the employer remained open to the transfer after the October incident and did not treat P.W. as having been dismissed.
Equivalency of the new position
A central question in the case was whether the transfer to Albion constituted “other reasonable employment” under the Code. P.W. argued that the change from being paid per job at Kia to being paid hourly at Albion materially affected his income and job duties. He also claimed the older vehicles serviced at Albion would be harder to work on and physically more demanding.
However, the board found no reliable evidence that P.W.’s compensation would have been adversely affected by the move. Though the nature of the vehicles differed, the board noted that the hourly pay model could have offset any additional time spent per job.
“There is no evidence to show on a balance of probabilities that the Complainant’s income would have been affected,” the board wrote. “While, in theory compensation on a piece by piece basis could be higher, little evidence was provided to support that argument.”
The board also dismissed P.W.’s concerns about physical strain, citing assurances from management that his lifting restrictions would be respected at Albion. The shop manager there had reportedly confirmed that younger staff would handle heavier tasks.
Legal framework and board reasoning
The Labour Standards Code requires that employees with more than 10 years’ service be given notice or pay in lieu of notice upon termination without cause. However, section 72(3)(e) creates an exception where the employer offers other reasonable employment.
The board applied the constructive dismissal framework from Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10, which requires that any unilateral change substantially alter an essential term of employment. That threshold was not met in this case.
Though the employer had the legal right to transfer P.W. without his consent, the board was critical of its failure to clearly communicate the plan or engage with him respectfully.
“There is no doubt that the new mechanic hired at Kia who took over the Complainant’s bay was hired long before the Complainant was advised of the intended transfer,” the board said.
Still, the employer’s shortcomings in human resources management did not rise to the level of a dismissal, constructive or otherwise.
“When the dust settled, the Complainant knew or ought to have known that there was a job for him with the Respondent sister business Albion located across the street.”
Final decision
The board concluded that the offer to transfer P.W. to the Albion location met the requirements of “other reasonable employment” under the Code. The complaint was dismissed.
For more information, see Wheaton v 3231040 Nova Scotia Limited, 2025 NSLB 51 (CanLII).
