Article content
A man who had requested parental leave from his employer, then inquired about his remuneration leading to him being fired, has won his case in court.
In a decision dated Feb. 22, Quebec’s Tribunal administratif du travail has annulled his dismissal and ordered the employer, PGVG Distributions Inc., to pay him, as compensation, the equivalent of his salary and other benefits of which the dismissal deprived him.
Article content
The worker, who was a store manager, had informed his employer before the 2022 holiday period that he intended to take parental leave at the beginning of 2023.
The employer asked him if he could make certain purchases and orders during his parental leave, which the worker eventually agreed to do.
The employer then asked the worker to postpone his parental leave. He accepted “to accommodate the employer,” the tribunal writes.
Time passed and the worker had difficulty obtaining the dates on which he could take his parental leave.
He then asked how he would be paid for the hours he was asked to occasionally work during his parental leave. He had directly contacted the president of the company, rather than his immediate superior, to also find out how his company bonus would be calculated during his parental leave.
Offended at having been directly contacted and questions asked by the worker about his remuneration during his parental leave, the president then announced to him this was his last day of work and he would have to return his keys the next day.
Before the tribunal, to justify the dismissal, the employer cited other reasons, such as blackmail, delays and unsatisfactory performance.
Article content
But the tribunal decided otherwise. “The blackmail alleged by the employer is not proven, nor is the unsatisfactory performance. The evidence consists only of general allegations.”
What’s more, two weeks before being fired, the worker had received a message from his immediate superior: “Don’t give up on your good work. I am very happy with the way you manage the store.”
The worker “is presumed to have been dismissed in retaliation for his request for parental leave within the meaning of the (Labour Standards Act)” and the employer was unable to prove that there was another cause fair and sufficient to explain this dismissal,” writes administrative judge Pierre-Étienne Morand.
He concludes “the dismissal is therefore marked with the seal of illegality” and he cancelled it.
Although the store has since closed its doors, Morand ordered the worker’s reinstatement, in order to re-establish his employment relationship with the company. This order is necessary, explains the tribunal, to re-establish the employment relationship and, thus, allow the worker to recover his salary and other benefits the dismissal deprived him.
Recommended from Editorial
Share this article in your social network
