Log in
Log in
Or log in with
GoogleGoogle
Twitter Twitter
Facebook Facebook
Apple Apple     
Sign up
Or log in with
GoogleGoogle
Twitter Twitter
Facebook Facebook
Apple Apple     
  1. Homepage
  2. Equities
  3. Canada
  4. Toronto Stock Exchange
  5. Loblaw Companies Limited
  6. News
  7. Summary
    L   CA5394811015

LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED

(L)
  Report
Delayed Toronto Stock Exchange  -  04:00 2022-10-03 pm EDT
112.01 CAD   +2.40%
09/28Benke v Loblaw Companies Limited
AQ
09/26Bivalent Boosters Now Available to Ontarians Aged 18+ at Shoppers Drug Mart and Loblaw Pharmacies
AQ
09/15Joe Fresh and Sasha Exeter Launch New Fashion-Forward Collection Together
AQ
SummaryQuotesChartsNewsRatingsCalendarCompanyFinancialsConsensusRevisionsFunds 
SummaryMost relevantAll NewsAnalyst Reco.Other languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

Alberta Court Releases First Decision Regarding Masking Policies + Constructive Dismissal

07/28/2022 | 12:29pm EDT

In Benke v. Loblaw Companies Limited, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the employee was not constructively dismissed when placed on an indefinite unpaid leave for failing to comply with a mandatory mask policy.

This decision suggests that when an employee refused to comply with a mandatory mask policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was reasonable for the employer to have treated the refusal as a repudiation of the employment agreement or placed the employee on an unpaid leave.

Facts

In August 2020, Loblaw Companies Limited ("Loblaw") implemented a policy mandating face masks in its stores to mitigate the transmission of the COVID-19 virus (the "Mask Policy"). The Mask Policy was implemented shortly after the City of Calgary passed a bylaw mandating face masks in indoor public places.

The employee was a Customer Experience Specialist, and visiting stores in Alberta and British Columbia was essential to his job duties.

The employee sought an exemption to the Mask Policy. He submitted a medical exemption request form and two letters from his physician. However, these documents did not state that his inability to wear a face mask was due to a medical condition or disability. The employee also admitted that the exception request was not due to an illness.

The employee refused to comply with the Mask Policy. Instead of terminating the employee, Loblaw placed him on an indefinite unpaid leave. The employee claimed that he was constructively dismissed and entitled to damages in lieu of notice of termination.

Decision

The Court dismissed the employee's claim, finding that the Mask Policy and Loblaw's decision to place the employee on an indefinite unpaid leave did not amount to a constructive dismissal.

The Court confirmed that a constructive dismissal occurs where:

  1. an employer has imposed a unilateral substantial change that constitutes a breach of the employment agreement, and
  2. if a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt that the breach substantially altered an essential term of the employment agreement.

First, the Court held that there was no obligation to accommodate the employee. Loblaw had accommodated the employee in the past by assigning him different job duties and allowing him to work from home. The employee argued that he should have been permitted to work from home or assigned other duties instead of being placed on an unpaid leave. The Court disagreed. The Court held that there was no duty to accommodate the employee in the circumstances since he did not have a disability or medical condition.

Second, the Court held that the Mask Policy was not a substantial change that constituted a breach of the employment agreement. The Court reasoned that the Mask Policy was coextensive with legal requirements imposed by municipalities and public health authorities (i.e., the City of Calgary's mask bylaw). The Mask Policy was also similar to other mask policies that were found to be reasonable by other decision-makers, including by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal in Dickson v. Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd, 2022 AHRC 40.

By refusing to comply with the Mask Policy, the Court held that it was the employee who repudiated the employment agreement. However, Loblaw did not accept the repudiation and instead elected to place the employee on unpaid leave.

The Court held that placing the employee on an unpaid leave was a substantial change, but it did not constitute a breach of the employment agreement. The Court reasoned that the essence of the employment relationship is that an employee works for an employer in exchange for pay. Since the employee was not working due to his choice not to comply with the Mask Policy, it was reasonable for Loblaw not to pay him.

Despite Loblaw continuing to show the employee in their records as being on an unpaid leave, the Court held that there can be no doubt that the employee resigned. The Court was able to draw this conclusion based on the fact that the employee returned his company vehicle, filed a human rights complaint, commenced the constructive dismissal claim, and obtained full-time employment with a different employer.

As a consequence, the Court dismissed the claim and awarded Loblaw costs.

Takeaways

This is a welcome decision for employers who implemented similar policies. It suggests that it was reasonable for an employer to have treated an employee's refusal to comply with a mandatory mask policy during the COVID-19 pandemic as a repudiation of the employment agreement or to place the employee on an unpaid leave.

It remains to be seen whether the courts will reach a similar conclusion with respect to mandatory vaccination policies without a medical or religious exemption.

This decision also highlights that an employee is not entitled to accommodation unless they have a disability or other ground provided under the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5.

Link to decision: Benke v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2022 ABQB 461

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mr Lee Carter
Field LLP
400 - 444 7 AVE SW
Calgary
CANADA
Tel: 403260 8500
Fax: 403264 7084
E-mail: faston@fieldlaw.com
URL: www.fieldlaw.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

All news about LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED
09/28Benke v Loblaw Companies Limited
AQ
09/26Bivalent Boosters Now Available to Ontarians Aged 18+ at Shoppers Drug Mart and Loblaw ..
AQ
09/15Joe Fresh and Sasha Exeter Launch New Fashion-Forward Collection Together
AQ
09/14DBRS Rates Loblaw's New Debt Issuance
MT
09/14DBRS Morningstar Assigns Rating of BBB (high), Stable Trend to Loblaw Companies Limited..
AQ
09/14LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED : Ex-dividend day for
FA
09/13Loblaw Brief: Says Completed Issuance of $800 Million In Senior Unsecured N..
MT
09/13Loblaw companies limited completes issuance of $800 million of senior unsecured notes
AQ
09/13Loblaw Companies Limited announced that it has received CAD 800 million in funding
CI
09/09Unpaid Leave For Refusal To Adhere To Masking Policy Does Not Constitute Constructive D..
AQ
More news
Analyst Recommendations on LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED
More recommendations
Financials
Sales 2022 55 011 M 40 335 M 40 335 M
Net income 2022 1 863 M 1 366 M 1 366 M
Net Debt 2022 11 756 M 8 620 M 8 620 M
P/E ratio 2022 20,2x
Yield 2022 1,41%
Capitalization 36 451 M 26 727 M 26 727 M
EV / Sales 2022 0,88x
EV / Sales 2023 0,85x
Nbr of Employees 220 000
Free-Float 44,7%
Chart LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED
Duration : Period :
Loblaw Companies Limited Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
TrendsBearishBearishNeutral
Income Statement Evolution
Consensus
Sell
Buy
Mean consensus OUTPERFORM
Number of Analysts 11
Last Close Price 112,01 CAD
Average target price 126,36 CAD
Spread / Average Target 12,8%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
Galen G. Weston Executive Chairman, President & CEO
Richard Dufresne Chief Financial Officer
David Markwell Chief Technology & Analytics Officer, Executive VP
Robert Sawyer Chief Operating Officer
Robert Wiebe Chief Administrative Officer
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capi. (M$)
LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED5.54%25 926
WALMART INC.-10.36%352 037
SYSCO CORPORATION-9.98%35 787
KROGER-3.34%31 317
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED-10.68%26 446
AHOLD DELHAIZE N.V.-13.27%25 328