In the decision 2108805 Ontario Inc. v. Boulad[1] rendered on January 25, 2016, the Quebec Court of Appeal overruled the trial judge who had considered that the change of employer resulting from a change of ownership constituted a unilateral and substantial modification of Mr. Boulad’s essential terms and conditions of employment and therefore awarded him an indemnity in lieu of notice of termination of employment equivalent to 24 months of salary and benefits.
Mr. Boulad was director of a hotel owned by the Westmount Hospitality Group (“Westmount“) an important international hotel group. Westmount sold the hotel for which Mr. Boulad was responsible to Jesta, a much smaller hotel group. Pursuant to the transaction and to section 2097 of the Civil Code of Quebec (“CCQ“), Jesta undertook to continue Mr. Boulad’s employment under the same terms and conditions of employment. Mr. Boulad refused to pursue employment with Jesta and asked Westmount to relocate him at another hotel or pay him a severance package. Westmount denied Mr. Boulad’s request as it considered his employment was being continued with Jesta pursuant to section 2097 CCQ. Mr. Boulad sued Westmount claiming that the change of employer amounted to a constructive dismissal, namely considering the loss of prestige associated with his employment with an important hotel group and the loss of transfer and promotion opportunities at the international level.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed the imperative and declaratory nature of section 2097 CCQ which stipulates that the employment contract continues to be in force and binding following the alienation of an enterprise.
The change of employer shall not be considered a substantial modification of the essential terms and conditions of employment for the sole reason that the new employer becomes the debtor of the previous employer’s obligations. The Court of Appeal also acknowledged that a business is not static and may evolve through time. The workplace atmosphere and environment, as well as transfer and promotion opportunities are generally not part of the terms and conditions of employment unless expressly stipulated in the employment contract. In this particular case, the evidence fell short from demonstrating that Westmount and Mr. Boulad had agreed to such considerations being part of the terms and conditions of employment. Both Westmount and Jesta abided by their legal obligations pursuant to section 2097 CCQ and Mr. Boulad could not legally or contractually require Westmount to relocate him or pay him severance. Mr. Boulad’s refusal to work for Jesta therefore constituted a voluntary resignation.
Accordingly, an employee who does not wish to continue employment with a successor employer may resign from employment but will have no recourse against the vendor or the purchaser, subject to specific undertakings in the employment agreement.
[1] 2016 QCCA 75.
