A Quebec labour tribunal has dismissed complaints of constructive dismissal and psychological harassment filed by a former assistant manager against Couche-Tard Inc., ruling that the employer took reasonable steps to address any harassment and that changes to his working conditions were due to medical restrictions.
K.C. was hired by Couche-Tard Inc. as an assistant manager in August 2019. Shortly after, he was promoted to acting manager but was demoted back to assistant manager in July 2020. On Aug. 26, 2020, K.C. suffered a workplace injury — whiplash —while taking inventory, leading to a sick leave authorized by his doctor. The Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) accepted his claim despite the employer’s challenge.
In December 2020, K.C.’s doctor permitted him to return to work with restrictions: “no manual labour, no lifting, no repetitive movement.” The employer provided light-duty assignments, which were renewed multiple times without objection from K.C. or his doctor. However, in mid-September 2021, K.C. refused these light duties, claiming some tasks were incompatible with his injury.
On Oct. 7, 2021, K.C. filed a complaint for dismissal without good and sufficient cause under section 124 of the Act Respecting Labour Standards (ALS), alleging constructive dismissal. Weeks later, he filed a new complaint for psychological harassment under section 123.6 of the ALS, stating that harassment began upon his hiring and worsened after his return from sick leave.
The employer denied dismissing K.C. and any allegations of psychological harassment. They argued they exercised their management rights appropriately, especially in light of K.C.’s medical restrictions prescribed by his physicians.
The tribunal was tasked with determining:
- Whether K.C. demonstrated that he suffered psychological harassment without the employer intervening to prevent or stop it.
- Whether K.C. was constructively dismissed at the end of summer 2021.
For the psychological harassment claim, K.C. alleged various vexatious behaviours, including discriminatory remarks, assignment to hazardous tasks, physical assault, improper compensation, and abuse of management rights.
Regarding the alleged discriminatory remarks, K.C. claimed his coordinator, Y.A., told him to work harder because of his skin colour. However, the tribunal found K.C.’s testimony vague and based on subjective impressions. Y.A. denied making such remarks, stating he encouraged K.C. to work more to set an example as a manager. The tribunal found Y.A.’s testimony credible and concluded that K.C.’s perception was unfounded.
K.C. also alleged he was assigned to clean the store after an employee contracted COVID-19, a task he considered dangerous and outside his duties. The tribunal noted that as a manager, ensuring store cleanliness fell within his responsibilities, especially during the pandemic’s exceptional circumstances. No evidence suggested this assignment was humiliating or abusive.
An accusation of physical assault was made against manager E.M., whom K.C. claimed removed his mask, yelled, and spat at him. E.M. acknowledged a confrontation occurred regarding a compliance quiz after an employee sold cigarettes to a minor but denied any physical aggression. The tribunal found E.M.’s testimony consistent and credible, determining that K.C.’s allegation was unsubstantiated.
K.C. further claimed he was not properly compensated for all hours worked, alleging repeated underpayments that required constant verification and correction. The tribunal recognized issues with the employer’s payroll system but did not find evidence of abusive or harassing conduct. The employer corrected errors upon notification, and any payroll discrepancies were being addressed by the CNESST.
Concerning the abuse of management rights, K.C. highlighted his unjustified demotion, inadequate training, excessive surveillance by manager M.F.B., and abusive conditions upon his return to work. The tribunal found that K.C.’s demotion in July 2020 resulted from his inability to meet all managerial requirements, particularly administrative tasks conducted in French—a language he did not master. The employer had initially promoted him based on his commitment to improve his French, which he failed to do.
On the issue of inadequate training, the employer provided standard training modules, with only advanced management training postponed due to COVID-19 restrictions. The tribunal did not find the employer at fault for this delay.
The tribunal did, however, acknowledge that between December 2020 and March 2021, K.C. was subject to excessive surveillance and control by manager M.F.B., who issued multiple disciplinary notices for minor infractions. K.C. reported feeling stressed, isolated, and harassed, leading him to file a complaint on March 3, 2021.
Upon receiving K.C.’s complaint, HR advisor J.N. investigated the allegations. She concluded that the disciplinary actions did not align with the employer’s coaching philosophy. The employer adjusted K.C.’s employee file by removing two of the four notices and informed him of the changes. Additionally, M.F.B. ceased working at the store on March 15, 2021, effectively addressing K.C.’s concerns.
“The employer has met its obligation to stop the harassment suffered by the complainant,” the tribunal stated, emphasizing that reasonable measures were taken once the employer was informed of the situation.
For the constructive dismissal claim, K.C. argued that the employer unilaterally and substantially changed his working conditions by altering his duties, reducing his work hours, and transferring him to evening shifts. The tribunal found that these changes were a direct result of medical restrictions prescribed by K.C.’s physicians following his workplace injury.
“The complainant cannot reproach the employer for respecting occupational health and safety legislation,” the tribunal noted. If K.C. believed the tasks did not align with his medical limitations, the appropriate recourse was to refuse them, which he eventually did in September 2021.
Regarding the reduction in work hours, the tribunal pointed out that it was also due to his functional limitations and that the CNESST compensated for any loss of income. The claim of being assigned night shifts was dismissed, as evidence showed the store closed by 11 p.m., and during the pandemic, as early as 8 p.m.
The tribunal concluded that a reasonable person in K.C.’s situation would not view the employer’s actions as a substantial breach of an essential term of the employment contract. “The evidence does not support a finding of constructive dismissal,” the tribunal ruled.
In November 2021, a medical evaluation requested by the CNESST determined that K.C.’s injury had been consolidated since May 5, 2021, with no permanent impairment or required treatment. Despite this, K.C. did not return to work, leading the employer to dismiss him on February 7, 2022, for unjustified absence.
The tribunal dismissed both complaints, reinforcing the importance for employers to address harassment allegations promptly and to document actions taken. It also highlighted that employers are within their rights to manage employees’ duties in accordance with medical restrictions, provided they act reasonably and communicate effectively.
Note: This case was originally published in French, and this article was written from a translated version of the ruling. Please check against the original for any detailed questions.
For more information, see Cunningham v. Couche-Tard inc., 2024 QCTAT 3601 (CanLII).
