A British Columbia security guard lost his bid for severance pay after a tribunal found he was not constructively dismissed when his employer placed him on unpaid suspension for failing to participate in an investigation into his absenteeism.
C.B. worked for the British Columbia Corps of Commissionaires as a security guard starting in October 2023. He called in sick from Jan. 24 to Feb. 2, 2024, and when he returned to work, the employer placed him on paid administrative leave. The company asked him to attend meetings to discuss his absenteeism, but he refused to participate. On Feb. 26, 2024, C.B. was placed on unpaid suspension.
C.B. argued the unpaid suspension amounted to constructive dismissal and sought $4,053 in severance pay, along with unpaid wages and reimbursement for employment-related expenses including first aid certification, security licensing fees and doctor’s note costs.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the employer had contractual authority to suspend C.B. without pay after he refused to participate in the investigation.
Sick leave policy breach
The tribunal examined two key policies that formed part of C.B.’s employment contract: the paid sick leave policy and the administrative suspension policy.
Under the sick leave policy, employees must provide “reasonably sufficient proof” of illness and call the operations centre to report absences. While C.B. emailed his absences instead of calling, the tribunal found this method was accepted by the employer and did not constitute a breach.
However, C.B. did breach the policy by refusing to provide a doctor’s note. The employer requested medical documentation on Jan. 26, 2024, but C.B. refused unless the company paid the doctor’s office fees. The tribunal found that since the policy made C.B. responsible for providing documentation, “it is implied that he is also responsible for any related fees.”
Administrative suspension authority
The administrative suspension policy stated that employees could be suspended with pay pending an investigation, and “if a commissionaire refuses to participate in an ongoing investigation, the administrative suspension will convert to a without pay suspension.”
Evidence showed the employer asked C.B. to attend meetings on Feb. 20 and Feb. 26, 2024. C.B. acknowledged he was asked to attend but refused, claiming the employer wouldn’t explain the meeting’s purpose. However, emails showed staff told him “the meeting was part of an investigation into his absenteeism,” according to the tribunal.
Constructive dismissal test not met
The tribunal applied a two-part test for constructive dismissal: whether the employer’s unilateral change breached a contractual term, and whether the breach was a substantial change to an essential term.
The tribunal found the first part of the test was not met because the employer had contractual authority to make the change. “If an employer has contractual authority to make the change, then it is not a unilateral change, and so there is no constructive dismissal,” the decision stated.
Since C.B. refused to participate in the investigation meetings, the tribunal concluded the contract allowed the employer to suspend him without pay.
Employment expenses denied
C.B. also sought reimbursement for first aid certification and security worker licensing costs. However, his employment contract specifically stated he was responsible for these expenses.
The contract said C.B. was responsible for the certifications, and while he claimed he understood the employer would cover these costs, emails between the parties showed the employer informed him the certifications were required but never promised reimbursement.
Unpaid wages claim fails
C.B.’s claim for unpaid wages from his final paycheck was dismissed for lack of evidence. The tribunal noted he “did not provide any details such as the amount of his last paycheck or a breakdown of what he believes he should have been paid.”
Individual liability dismissed
The tribunal also dismissed claims against A.W., finding she was acting as the employer’s employee rather than in her personal capacity. The decision noted that corporate employees are not personally liable “unless they have committed a wrongful act independently from the corporation.”
Key contractual provisions
C.B.’s employment contract included a clause stating he would have access to company policies and the code of conduct, and that he “understood and agreed these documents form part of their contract of employment with the employer, and agrees to comply with them at all times.”
This incorporation clause proved crucial in the tribunal’s analysis, as it made the sick leave and administrative suspension policies binding contractual terms rather than mere workplace guidelines.
For more information, see Bains v. Webb, 2025 BCCRT 866 (CanLII).
