Lawyers make closing remarks in Qulliq lawsuit; judge to issue judgment “in due course”

The civil lawsuit of a former employee of Qulliq Energy Corp. in Iqaluit wrapped up June 14 at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit. (FILE PHOTO

Justice Sue Cooper wrapped up hearing a week of testimony at the Nunavut Court of Justice June 14, which saw five days devoted to a lawsuit against Qulliq Energy Corp. sparked by the corporation’s abrupt dismissal of employee Sarah Kucera.

Kucera sued Qulliq for wrongful or constructive dismissal and breach of contract, seeking damages of more than $444,000.

Thirteen months of work for Qulliq in Iqaluit came to an end for Kucera in 2010, when she asked, through her lawyer, to renegotiate her employment contract.

Qulliq abruptly fired her on August 6, 2010 on receiving the request from lawyer Phillip Hunt, leaving her with no more than a week’s pay and just three weeks to clear out of corporation housing.

“It was entirely reasonable for a client to seek the advice of a lawyer,” said Hunt, Kucera’s lawyer in the case, June 14 in his closing arguments.

Taking legal advice before quitting a big job is an option too few employees take, Hunt said, and should not be grounds for firing a worker.

QEC lawyer Richard Beamish countered in his closing statement that the content of Hunt’s letter suggested any further relationship between Qulliq and the employee was not possible.

The letter was an ultimatum that accused the company of having a “culture of conflict, division and secrecy, created and encouraged by the president,” he said.

This was a case of constructive dismissal, he said, adding that the former employee should not be entitled “to more than one month’s pay” from the date of her firing.

In the first day of testimony, June 10, Kucera said she eagerly took on the position with Qulliq in 2009 as a new challenge in a different part of the country.

She and her spouse left Toronto for Kucera’s new position as administrative assistant to president and chief executive officer, Peter Mackey.

Both Mackey and human resources director Catherine Cronin described the company as being in a “state of flux” in their own testimony.

Various changes were underway when the company implemented a “functional review process,” mandated by the Auditor General of Canada.

Kucera said her job got off to a confusing start when Cronin instructed her “to be careful in communications” with two co-workers, and said she “may need to hide certain information from them.”

“I wondered what I had gotten myself into,” Kucera told the court. “This was a small office and I needed to communicate with co-workers on a daily basis.”

This added stress to the job, she said. Shifting job responsibilities and changing details on salary and pay scales in the first three months drove Kucera to threaten resignation after her third month on the job, which, she said, resulted in a heated exchange with Cronin.

The relationship between the two reached a low by the May 2010, and led Mackey to organize a mediation session between the two. The session failed to resolve anything.

Human resources director Catherine Cronin took the stand June 11 on the second day of the trial.

She said she had no issues with Kucera in her first few months with the corporation.

“I liked Sarah and I really wanted her to succeed, and didn’t want anything to stand in her way,” Cronin said. This changed when Cronin learned in April 2010 that the administrative assistant had made several complaints about her to Mackey.

In his testimony, Mackey agreed with Cronin that Kucera was highly valued for her good work.

Her issues with a downgrade to her position went unresolved, however, and an attempt to resolve the rift between her and Cronin failed.

In his closing statement June 14, Qulliq lawyer Beamish said the company did its best to retain Kucera as an employee. Qulliq dealt with Kucera’s difficulties throughout her 13 months, including her early threat to quit, in a positive way, he said — until her lawyer’s letter to renegotiate a contract came through.

“The defendant could have said ‘take a walk.’ But they didn’t,” he said. “They liked her and did what they could to keep her.”

Beamish argued that the case was one of “constructive dismissal,” meaning that the company “made it unpleasant enough for her that she was walking away from her job,” he said.

Hunt said there were grounds for both “constructive” and “wrongful dismissal” in the case.

Cooper said June 14 she will issue a written decision “in due course.”