Mitigation: Constructive Dismissal: Demotion: Mifsud Facts

Mifsud was hired by the company initially as a die cut operator in 1965. He became a foreman in 1970 and a plant superintendent in 1974. Apart from a 15 month interval when he had left and then re-joined the company, he remained so employed until September of 1984.

Mifsud was one of three plant superintendents who each worked two rotating shifts, one from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and the second from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. The evening shift from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. was supervised by a foreman. Mifsud, prior to the event giving rise to the action, had not been required to work this shift.

Performance issues had arisen with respect to Mifsud by August of 1984. He was advised that he was to be transferred to another plant location as a foreman, while his salary and benefits remained the same. He was told that he was not to be red-circled. He was no longer to report to one Holmes, who had been particularly critical of him and told that his future within the company would be a function of his own performance. The pay grade of both positions overlapped. Mifsud’s monthly income of $2,935 was in the range of each. The superintendent’s pay range was $2,915 to $3,860 and that of the new foreman position was $2,460 to $3,195.

In the new position, Mifsud was required to work the rotating three shifts which included the evening shift, from which he had been excluded previously.

Mifsud worked one week in the new assignment and then alleged constructive dismissal.

At trial, Mifsud succeeded.

👤
About the Author: David Harris — Canadian Employment Law •
💼
LinkedIn •
🎥
YouTube

📚
Explore Other Chapters in This Book

🔙
Back to Mitigation Main Page

🏠
Return to Canadian Employment Law