Support through your toughest HR challenges: A network of 285,000 HR professionals.
Shawn Premer shows how doing the right thing for employees leads to positive business results.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice—Johal v Simmons da Silva LLP—should serve as a reminder that Ontario employers ought to exercise caution before accepting a resignation from an employee who quits suddenly following an emotional outburst at work. Saying "I quit" or storming out of the workplace is not always enough. For the resignation to be considered sincere, it must be clear and unequivocal. Most importantly, it must reflect the employee's intention to resign.
The plaintiff, Rajinder Johal, worked as a senior family law clerk at Simmons da Silva LLP, a law firm, for 27 years. On June 3, 2015, a partner of the firm called Johal in for a meeting. During this meeting, Johal was informed of certain changes that were to be made to the family law group. At the time, the family law group consisted of four lawyers, three senior law clerks, including Johal, and two junior law clerks. Johal was told that one of the lawyers was resigning and that one of the senior law clerks would soon be returning to work from a parental leave. According to Johal, she was also told that she would now be reporting to this other senior law clerk and that her work would be assigned to her by this other law clerk. Suffice it to say, Johal was not at all impressed.
The next morning (June 4, 2015), Johal removed all of her personal belongings from the office. She went to see the partner who had spoken with her the day prior, gave him her security pass and walked out of the office. She did not return to work on Friday, June 5, 2015 or on Monday, June 8, 2015. She did not contact any partner of the firm or the human resources department.
Soon thereafter, the employer mailed a letter to Johal accepting her resignation and confirming that it was effective as of June 8, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.
On June 9, 2015, Johal wrote an email to her employer asking to withdraw her notice of resignation. The employer refused on the basis that it had relied on Johal's resignation. Specifically, the employer said it had already (i) notified a probationary junior law clerk that her employment was secure, (ii) advised clients about Johal's departure, and (iii) advised the other staff members that Johal had resigned. The employer was concerned that rehiring Johal would encourage other employees of the firm to resign without notice as they would not be subject to any repercussions for such actions.
It is now well-established law that a resignation must be clear and unequivocal to be valid. The employee, by his or her words and actions, must reflect an intention to resign. Whether words or actions equate to resignation must be viewed contextually. The surrounding circumstances are, of course, relevant to help determine whether a reasonable person, viewing the matter objectively, would have understood that the employee intended to resign.
In Johal, the court considered several factors surrounding the alleged resignation of Johal:
In considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that Johal had not voluntarily resigned from her employment. Instead, she needed a few days to consider the changes that were taking place and what they meant for her going forward. Given the context, Johal's employer was required to take additional steps following her sudden departure to determine her true and unequivocal intention. The court, therefore, found that Johal was wrongfully dismissed and, failing an agreement of the parties, ordered a trial on the issue of damages.
Takeaway for Employers
Employers should always ensure that a resignation is clear and unequivocal, especially if it occurs "in the heat of the moment." An employer who jumps the gun and accepts a notice of resignation without considering the surrounding circumstances risks significant exposure for wrongful dismissal. When in doubt, provide the employee with sufficient time to "cool down" and then seek to clarify the employee's intention before processing the resignation.
Stefan Kimpton is an attorney with Fasken Martineau in Ottawa. © 2017 Fasken Martineau. All rights reserved. Reposted with permission of Lexology.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Talent Attraction Study: What Matters to the Modern Candidate
Choose from dozens of free webcasts on the most timely HR topics.
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies