Court examines post-employment obligations in customer-facing roles
The Court of King's Bench of Alberta recently dealt with an application for an interlocutory injunction, where a company sought to prevent their former employee from working with clients at her new workplace.
The worker argued she never held significant authority in the organisation and was merely carrying out administrative tasks under management's direction, despite the company's claims about her role.
The case examined what makes someone a fiduciary who owes special duties to their employer. It highlighted important considerations about worker mobility, client relationships, and post-employment obligations that continue to affect many industries today.
Understanding fiduciary duties at work
The dispute emerged in the printing industry, where the worker had spent most of her career. After working in her family's printing business until 1999, she joined her former employer as an order entry clerk. Her role evolved to include scheduling, planning, estimating, and providing quotes to clients.
The former employer claimed she was a key employee based on her supposed title as "general manager," placement in the organisational chart, and scope of duties. However, the worker testified she never held that title and was unaware of her placement in the organisation's leadership team on their website.
The Court found that the worker primarily handled administrative tasks under the owner's direction, including customer service, maintaining client relationships, ordering supplies, and scheduling jobs.
The Court explained that employee fiduciary duties arise when workers have significant power over company operations. The analysis focused on whether the worker had "actual authority or control over the employer's operation" rather than just being good at her job.
This principle was illustrated in earlier cases. The Court quoted a previous decision: "That [the employer] needed [the worker], or relied upon her to be the backbone of one of their profit center[s] does not make her into a 'key employee' for the purpose of affixing fiduciary duties."
Post-employment client relationships and duties
After ending her employment, the worker sent emails to former clients informing them of her new contact information. While some messages praised her new employer, the Court found insufficient evidence of active solicitation.
The Court noted that customer identities were generally known in the printing industry, and companies often sourced multiple providers for jobs.
The worker testified she reconstructed contact information from memory or found it through public sources like corporate websites and LinkedIn.
‘Valuable employees’ vs fiduciaries
In examining the evidence, the Court noted several factors that indicated the worker was not a fiduciary: she was an hourly wage employee, had no written job description or performance reviews, and was not a director or officer of the company.
The Court's conclusion emphasised the distinction between valuable employees and fiduciaries: "[The worker] was not there to lead the company. That was the purview of [the owner]. [The worker's] duties essentially were scheduling, planning, estimating, stock purchasing and providing quotes to clients, and carrying out the instructions of [the owner] with respect to any other administrative tasks specifically assigned."
The Court further explained: "The value or competence of the employee does not, by itself, provide the required degree of vulnerability."
Finally, in dismissing the application, the Court stated: "What is missing is the employee having such discretion and power to make business decisions such that the employer's legal or practical interests are vulnerable to the exercise of that power discretion."