View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 9[37] Mr. Chandran’s last job as Senior Manager, Vaughan Commercial Banking, was rated ata position of G7. The “G” denotes the supervisory function and the 7 is the salary level. Mr.Chandran’s evidence was that neither of the two jobs was acceptable as they were clearlydemotions. All of the supervisory duties would be removed. Further, as is evidenced by the jobratings, the compensation level would be restricted. Mr. Chandran testified that within the Bankboth of these jobs would be seen as a loss of prestige and the employees would know that Mr.Chandran was moved right after the employee survey was conducted.[38] The Bank countered this argument with evidence that as a result of the widths of thesalary bands within the different grades, it was possible that Mr. Chandran would not suffer anyloss of compensation. This was because Mr. Chandran was not at the top of his salary band inhis position of Senior Manager.[39] Mr. Chandran relies on the case of Cox v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada, [1989] O.J. No.675, wherein the Ontario Court of Appeal held at paragraph 14 that:2011 ONSC 777 (CanLII)“I have no doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to assess his position on the basisof what he heard; that is all he could report to his lawyer. He had been told of anundefined position that sounded like one of the trust officers who had been underhis supervision, and that a former subordinate would be taking his position. In myview the loss of all management functions and responsibilities and reporting toyour old position is ostensibly much more than a “change of title” – it mustappear as a demotion and a change of status. Harley considered the reportingchange an important one to ease a difficult personal relationship and, absent thatelement, and it was absent to the plaintiff, I believe both he and the trial judgewould have seen the change in different terms as to status and demotion.”[40] The court further held that the demotion and the status of the job were not the onlyfactors. It was held that the employment relationship must be viewed overall. It stated atparagraph 16 that:“In the present case the plaintiff showed evidence of being unfit for managementfunctions – clearly a fundamental problem to the company. The plaintiff’ssuperiors proceeded quite properly and with genuine concern to address thatproblem, but by definition a fundamental adjustment to the plaintiff’semployment was necessary. Nothing could be more basic to the company than tohave a manager who could not manage, and nothing was more basic to theplaintiff’s role than that he was managing. The cure for the company wasequivalent to the impact upon the employee – a fundamental change.”[41] The court concluded that even if a company is properly motivated, it can still be liable fora constructive dismissal.