Federal court decides whether termination was unreasonable
A worker filed a judicial review before the federal court, alleging that her termination after she came back from maternity leave was unreasonable.
The worker, Chelsea Giffen, was employed at TM Mobile Inc. (Telus). She started on February 26, 2007, later assuming the role of Business Systems Analyst I.
After returning from maternity leave on September 11, 2018, she faced dismissal on December 6, 2018. Subsequently, Giffen filed an unjust dismissal complaint.
After submitting it to an adjudicator, it ruled against the worker on December 29, 2021. The latter then filed her claim before the federal court for judicial review, alleging unjust dismissal and discriminatory practices.
Throughout her almost 12 years with Telus, Giffen held various roles. On November 26, 2018, a restructuring initiative impacted Telus' Customer Service Excellence business unit, leading to dismissals, including Giffen's position.
The employer decided to retain another employee, one referred to as “B.D.,” and dismiss Giffen. According to the employer’s manager, David Martin, the decision was based on factors such as seniority and experience.
Giffen raised allegations of bad faith, and the matter was referred to an adjudicator. The latter, however, found the dismissal was in good faith, considering objective criteria.
The employer’s decision was taken as part of a broader layoff, which was aimed at promoting economic efficiency, leading to the adjudicator's ruling that Giffen's dismissal was reasonable and not unjust.
The worker then questioned the employer’s criteria in choosing her for termination. Specifically, she raised concerns about Martin's decision to credit B.D.'s experience as Business Systems Analyst I, acquired from filling in for Giffen, while neglecting the worker's experience during her maternity leave.
She said that that considering experience as a criterion is inherently discriminatory, consistently disadvantaging an employee on leave.
The worker argued that the employer unreasonably implemented the criteria, miscalculating the worker's seniority, and applying discriminatory practices concerning maternity leave.
She said that “simply by counting B.D.’s experience in the role while backfilling, but not [her] time on maternity leave, amounts to discrimination because [she] was unable to accrue experience. Doing so, the [worker said], renders the protection for women on maternity leave hollow.”
On the other hand, the employer said that “there is nothing inappropriate for an employer to consider experience in the role, as time actually spent on the role, as a measure of skills, when considering who to retain or dismiss, as the case may be.”
The federal court said that “employers may implement layoffs for legitimate economic or business reasons, provided the decision was made in good faith.”
“It is trite law that employers have complete latitude in deciding how to run their businesses and may lay off employees for legitimate business reasons, such as restructuring, without running the risk of being accused of unjust dismissal, even if the employees affected have spotless disciplinary records or have always been beyond reproach,” it said.
The court found no anomaly in the employer’s conduct. It said it based its decision on reasonable criteria.
“Martin explained he assessed two factors: a) seniority within Telus, and b) experience in performing the role,” the court said. “In good faith, [he] believed that B.D. had both greater seniority and job experience,” it added.
As for the worker’s allegation that she was discriminated against for taking maternity leave, the court also did not find any basis to support her argument.
It said that it was “sympathetic to the [worker], who was terminated on the heel of her return from maternity leave, after having worked for Telus for more than a decade.”
The court further emphasised that its “role is to assess the decision in accordance with the law and the facts before the adjudicator.”
“The [adjudicator’s] decision meets the hallmarks of transparency, intelligibility and justification, and is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision‑maker,” it said.
Thus, it dismissed the worker’s appeal and affirmed the adjudicator’s decision that she was reasonably dismissed.
