Daniel Dagenais has been working for the non-profit organization parents-hope since September 2022. The employer’s mission is to help parents weakened in mental health.
The complainant notably animates workshops for customers as “a pair helping”.
In October 2023, he “participated in a team meeting in which the management assistant asked him to stop being creative and to stick to his tasks,” wrote the administrative judge Benoit Roy-Déry, in a decision rendered on June 25.
A few days later, Mr. Dagenais complained of psychological harassment to the Committee on Standards, Equity, Health and Occupational Safety (CNESST).
One month after the complaint was filled, the organization director announces that there will be no Christmas party for employees or salary increase next year since the board of directors must deal with said complaint.
End of employment
In February 2024, Mr. Dagenais tried to access the body’s computer network to perform his tasks, but the connection seems impossible. He therefore contacts the director to solve the problem.
“The latter announces to him that her job ended the previous Friday. According to the director, by keeping him in employment, a “serious deficit” would arise the following year. She claims that it was by looking at the financial statements of January 2024 that she noticed it, ”read the decision of the Administrative Labor Tribunal (TAT).
However, nothing suggested these financial difficulties. In addition, the organization hires a new host the following spring, then another in the fall, part -time. An administrative assistant also joins the team in a part -time position.
Money problems?
The Parents-Espoir organization notably obtains recurrent funding from the government, in addition to federal and provincial subsidies for specific projects.
The financial statements are presented every month to the board of directors. Most of the expenses come from employee wages and social charges.
The court could see that the organization’s surplus of the organization in 2024 was greater than that of the previous year. In the same year, the employer also benefited from new funding, in addition to hiring new people.
In this case, the organization has not demonstrated that the organizational or economic reasons invoked for the dismissal of Mr. Dagenais were real. The proof was neither sufficient nor convincing.
“The financial situation invoked is only a pretext to depart from the complainant. […] The court therefore believes that the complaint for psychological harassment has influenced the employer’s decision to end his job, which the law prohibited, “said the decision.
We are therefore not talking about a dismissal, but a dismissal.
Illegal dismissal
The Labor standards law provides that an employer cannot dismiss an employee because he has exercised a law provided for there, underlines the court immediately.
And to justify the dismissal, the body must prove a fair and sufficient cause.
“No effort is made to maintain Mr. Dagenais in employment. The employer does not offer him to reduce his hourly remuneration or to reduce the number of hours worked per week, ”adds the judge in his decision.
The employer has made multiple decisions “in contradiction” with the alleged financial problems. No just cause is proven.
The state therefore determines that the body is at fault. He therefore ordered the employer to reintegrate Mr. Dagenais into his ranks, in addition to paying him the equivalent of salary and other advantages of which deposed it.
