In this case, the board found that it was likely that the phrase “you’re fired” was said to the worker, but it was clear that the company contacted the worker later the same day and the following day to recall the worker. The worker acknowledged this contact but declined to return, saying that he understood that he had been terminated.
Resignation
The board found that the company demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker had not been dismissed but had instead refused the recall to work. As a result, the worker abandoned his employment, said the board.
The board also found that, even if it accepted the worker’s argument that his employment had been terminated, the worker’s act of throwing hot coffee in the co-owner’s face and causing injury was a disproportionate response to the verbal argument and would have been just cause for termination without notice.
“More often than not, when an employer communicates a termination to an employee, it can’t just turn around and rescind it,” says Alward. “But I think part of the reason why the board ruled in the way that it did is that even if the worker had been terminated, the company would have had just cause.”
“The company was prepared to continue to keep the worker employed, so I think the board thought that the right thing to do would be to treat it as a resignation rather than an improper termination – the board found that even if the worker was terminated, it was for cause, so he doesn’t get anything anyway,” adds Alward.
