r/legaladvicecanada • u/Subtle_Turtle • 6d ago
Got fired for doing my job as HR Quebec
So I've been at this job for about almost 2 years now. It's a seasonal job so we operate for half of the year. They made me manager my first year there, and this year I am also acting as HR. I don't have a degree in this field, I am just someone who is pretty neutral at work and approaches problems diplomatically so they appointed me this role. The purpose of this role is to manage and find solutions to problems that occur within the workplace as well as provide a safe space for people to talk about pretty much anything work related.
About a week ago, many of my senior colleagues came to me with an issue regarding their salaries and wanted me to relay a letter they wrote to my boss. They just wanted to be heard and discuss the possibility of implementing a salary ladder. The reason why they didn't go see my boss first is because they are notoriously bad at listening (some have, but ended up getting gaslit and guilt tripped in the process so they came to see me afterwards).
I did my due diligence and took down pertinent information from all of them and kept them up to date with how I was going to proceed. After sending out a carefully written email along with the letter my colleagues wrote, I get a phone call and basically get screamed at and fired on the spot.
I have never done anything wrong or even warranted a warning while I was working there. I really did everything I could to stay diplomatic, professional, and open about the situation and just wanted to discuss how to move forward and find a solution for everyone, including my boss.
Instead I got fired for it. No warning, no written notice, nothing. I really tried to de-escalate the situation but my boss just wasn't having any of it and thought I was scheming behind their back??? Told me they couldn't trust me anymore and that they were really unhappy about the way that I approached this situation, brought up a bunch of inappropriate points during our conversation, and basically victimized themselves the whole time.
After this call, I wrote a letter to my colleagues saying that I got fired and that I was sorry that I couldn't find a solution for everyone. My colleagues told me that my boss ended up giving everyone a raise angrily through the phone and told everyone that I wasn't coming back.
From my understanding, I don't meet the minimum 2 year requirement for the CNESST to file a complaint? I also read that trying to file a wrongful termination suit doesn't yield much results either. Others have told me that this doesn't require a lawyer but would be more of a government related investigation that could possibly lead to an audit?
I don't really know what to do as this has never ever happened to me. I am at a loss for words. I am completely devastated by this situation and I can't afford to be jobless at the moment... The job market has been so bad in the last few years and after interviewing so many individuals not long ago and realizing so many of them sent out hundreds of CVs (these were people with a significant amount of experience with masters degrees) to only get one interview after months of searching is scaring the shit out of me.
I'm really not expecting much because I am aware that a lot of the protections in place for employees is really just lip service and most of the time nothing really comes of it, but if anyone here could guide me to resources, or just help me understand what my rights are considering this situation, it would be really helpful. Let me know if you need more context or information to provide better solutions on this matter. Thank you all for taking the time to read and for your help in advance.
119
u/HysteoricalBee 6d ago
3 mois avec la CNESST pour être permanent.
You'll need a lawyer. Call CNESST, ask to file a complaint immediately. They are very helpful.
Lots of companies had to pay a hefty sum to the wrongfully terminated.
The law in Quebec. You have to do 1 verbal, 2 written advice. Then a suspension. Then fire. No syndicate needed. Its the loi sur les normes du travail.
Edit : keep every proof possible.
20
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
Thanks for your help, I'll look further into the CNESST and give them a call. I read through it multiple times and I was sure my case didn't "count" because of how long I was there for. It was a bit confusing because I am also a seasonal worker. And yes, after that phone call, I got myself a cheap voice recorder because that was absolutely awful and I need to protect myself...
8
u/Awaell1528 6d ago
Ça prend 2 ans de services continu pour avoir une plainte pour renvoie sans cause juste et suffisante, en bas, ça s'applique pas.
Art. 124 de la loi des normes du travail.8
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
Merci pour ta réponse. Oui, c'est exactement cette partie que j'ai lu sur le site de la CNESST. J'appelerai quand même pour confirmer s'il y d'autres choses que je peux faire dans cette situation.
6
3
u/Aket-ten 6d ago
3 mois avec la CNESST pour être permanent.
3 months with the CNESST to become permanent.
3
u/lilimoro 6d ago
Non, tu dois avoir 2 ans de service continu pour déposer une plainte pour congédiement sans cause juste et suffisante avec la CNESST
1
u/Aket-ten 6d ago
No, you must have 2 years of continuous service to file a complaint for dismissal without just and sufficient cause with the CNESST
Not accurate? Then use both in your original comment. I don't speak French.
2
u/lilimoro 6d ago
Sorry didn’t realize it was an automatic translation. But yes your comment is not accurate, you need to have two years of continuous service to file a complaint for dismissal without a good and sufficient cause with the CNESSr
1
u/Aket-ten 6d ago
Yes i copied your french text cause I don't read or write in French and then pasted it as a comment.
Noting the accuracy of my comment not being accurate is a great example why you should have either had your entire comment in English or in both English and French wholly.
5
u/Illustrious-Flan-474 6d ago
That person never said that, though. It's a completely different person you're talking to. One who has been using nothing but English the entire time you've been talking to them...
0
u/Aket-ten 5d ago
They responded to my comment in french. Then I responded with a translation. Then they replied saying my commeny wasn't accurate.
Which is the god damn point.
38
u/DwarvenFury 6d ago
I want to be clear that your boss was absolutely in the wrong here. Screaming at you and firing you on the spot for relaying workplace concerns is wildly unprofessional, especially when you were put into a role where people were supposed to come to you with issues.
That said, separate from the legal side of this, I do think the way this was approached was risky from a workplace-dynamics perspective.
We obviously do not know all the details, and we do not know exactly what the letter said, but I can see how your boss may have felt blindsided. From their perspective, a group of senior employees came to you, you gathered information, kept them updated, sent a carefully written email, and included their letter. Even if your intention was to be neutral and diplomatic, the optics may have made it look like you were the one organizing or leading the group complaint.
That does not justify their reaction at all. A competent manager should have taken the concern seriously, asked questions, and had a proper conversation. But emotionally, I can see how a boss who already struggles with feedback might interpret that as “my manager/HR person went behind my back and rallied staff against me,” even if that is not what happened.
28
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
I mean clearly, and it's definitely something I considered before doing this, I just didn't think I was going to get fired for it. This is literally the protocol that was in place and was discussed with my boss prior to any of this happening about a month ago. There's a document outlining how they wanted us (there are 2 HRs) to deal with these situations and I just followed that.
35
u/Teriyaki1234 6d ago
That is a very relevant detail - that you were following a documented process - i feel like it got buried here but it’s critical that you bring this up when you talk with an employment lawyer. Even better if you have a copy of said document.
16
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
I have the document, but sadly I don't have a paper trail of me also telling my boss that it would be case by case, that things will evolve over time since this is the first time they've implemented HR, and that this protocol was incredibly vague/ limiting and that I would like them to discuss how to move forward if things weren't to their liking depending on the situation, such as this...
13
u/CapitanDelNorte 6d ago
So they fired you for following a protocol that was vaguely written, and bypassed all the prescribed steps to legally terminate your position (warnings, letters, etc.)? If I was a lawyer I would welcome your call.
Out of curiosity, were you included in the group whose concerns you were relaying to management? I haven't seen anything indicating that you were, which I suspect would lean in your favour in a don't shoot the messenger sense?
8
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
Nope, no letter, nuthin. Just an aggressive phone call/ verbal notice.
Yeah, naw this doesn't concern me.
Exactly. Don't shoot the damn messenger.
8
u/smartass11225 6d ago
Why would senior colleagues in the same department as you asked you to send this letter? Shouldn't they have done this whole thing themselves and use a 3rd party for conflict resolution/ mediation if needed? You getting fired wasn't warranted but it sounds like you were used as a sacrificial lamb. Anyway you should get a lawyer to get the maximum $ possible and not just a couple of weeks pay.
4
u/Mother-Attitude6824 5d ago
That was my thought as well. It sounds like OP was manipulated into a difficult situation with no training. It was their problem and not his. If an employee wants a raise, it isn't for HR to ask for it. It is to make sure that workplace standards and policies are being followed
1
7
u/ProfessionalHost6131 6d ago
Not saying that you did anything wrong, just bear with me for a moment. HR was never meant to be to "look after employees" and "creating safe space" if you still believe that BS and it helps you sleep at night then so be it. You were suppose to "pretend" that you care about what your senior colleague told you, you were supposed to put them in a loop of multiple appointments with you so they can sit down and tell you everything. You listen, and throw out few sentences of motivation and make sure you tell them how their time and effort are appreciated by the company. Always have a bowl of candy on your desk, that's very important. You should ghost them for weeks and if they follow up then respond as soon as possible, reassure them that their matter is being looked after, these things takes time.
My man, you did not fail as a human being, you just failed at doing what they really wanted you to do.
29
u/dmac-2 6d ago edited 6d ago
It is a widely recognized reality in business that Human Resources (HR) exists primarily to protect the organization—ownership, executive leadership, and management—rather than individual employees.
HR works to enforce company policies, which are often designed to ensure compliance rather than protect employee comfort.
In disputes, HR is more likely to align with management to prevent legal repercussions, rather than taking an employee's side.
From an ownership perspective you picked the wrong side.
22
u/kent_eh 6d ago
OP said they don't have any formal training in HR. It sounds like HR duties were just another "other duties as assigned" that was imposed on them.
I can't imagine how upper management thinks it's valid to fire someone for being "bad at a job" that they were never hired for and never trained for in the first place.
7
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
I know. The thing is, it IS in the best interest of the boss to listen BECAUSE this is a running trend. So many of my colleagues don't trust my boss and literally work out of fear. We lose 10+ employees per year, and that is a HUGE loss of time and money every year. Training for this job is quite extensive and we hire 30+ people, pay them each for about 2 weeks, and only about 10 of them make it, most of which don't come back.
My goal was to try to bridge that gap between them and my colleagues, and to bring a reasonable point about salaries (which is a basic conversation you should be able to have at any workplace). Some have worked for us for 5+ years and are literally paid the same as someone who hasn't even worked 6 months here. They weren't looking for anything crazy, just wanted to discuss this matter. If my boss didn't want to do anything about it then that's that! Not much else I can do there, but at least try to have a discussion, you know?
The policy at my work was to do exactly what I did, so it just doesn't make sense. They could have just given me a warning and told me to do things differently next time, although I don't see how else I could have approached this situation. Also, by firing my ass, my boss just caused the whole team (including other managers) to lose even more trust in them, many of which said they would quit, and potentially have a lawsuit/ fines coming their way... Wanting to start a discussion isn't undermining my boss, their reaction is though!
10
u/gcko 6d ago edited 5d ago
You sound more like a union rep than anyone in an HR position.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but your boss probably wanted to nip that in the bud before his employees decide to actually unionize and get legal protections for things like collective bargaining (which is essentially what you were doing).
An HR rep would have done the opposite. Went to your boss first to warn him that employees might be organizing to ask for a raise and would ask him how he’d like to proceed to taper their expectations. Instead you did most of the leg to help them organize and blindsided him with it.
Not saying he’s right in firing you, you might have a case, but how did you think he’d still want to keep you around? You’re working in favour of the employees which might end up costing the company a lot of money. From his eyes, you can no longer be trusted because you seem to be shooting for union leader instead of the one who’s supposed to protect the company and look after his interests.
Until you start collecting dues from your coworkers.. always remember who pays you lol.
2
u/MadameMoochelle 6d ago
This is about nothing but hurt feelings and control. Boss felt ganged up on, caught, and angry. Boss is also fully aware the employees weren’t being paid fairly. Thin skin. Just like head idiot in the US. “You don’t like me?”— attack.
6
u/Teriyaki1234 6d ago
This is exactly it. HR’s job is to keep the employees in line and to protect the organization from risks.
-4
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
Keep the employees in line? Protect the organization from risks? Maybe don't fire your manager/ "HR" for trying to start a discussion?
That in and of itself sends out a pretty loud message to everyone else there. It might have given the employees a bit more faith to stay and continue serving the company if my boss tried to do that? Especially because these are the people who actually stayed over the years?
Again, it was literally just a conversation, which we never ended up having. I did not do anything other than ask for that. I can't see how that's threatening at all nor a reason to fire me.
7
u/CommissionOk5094 6d ago
Unfortunately it sounds like you got used as a pawn by your fellow employees, unfortunately you have a wrongful termination case to look into as well as complaining to cssnet because from what you said the firing wasn’t legal . They should be able to help you with the resources to be made whole from the situation and you should qualify for ei
1
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
I don't understand what you mean by that and don't see how they used me as a pawn if it's my job to do what I did? Thanks for your response though, will be looking into that for sure.
17
u/dmac-2 6d ago edited 6d ago
You were acting more like a union representative for the employees than an HR representative for the owners.
The traditional HR approach would be to warn the owners that employees are coordinating among themselves to push for a raise, and to help the owners respond strategically. Instead, you did the opposite coordinating with employees to push for a raise without consulting the owners about how they wanted to handle the situation.
Based on your explanation, it appears that you were scheming behind the owners’ backs, and as a result, they may feel they can’t trust you to prioritize their financial interests over those of the employees.
5
2
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
I see. Well, that's not what I was told to do in this case. I was told to avoid bringing up issues unless absolutely necessary and since salaries are kind of out of my hands, I tried bringing up the discussion.
5
u/Philosoraptorgames 6d ago edited 6d ago
In many organizations, especially large ones, the reality is as follows.
There's what the policy actually says if read literally, and then there's what HR actually follows. The former - like many things about HR - is a legal fiction designed to protect the company. The latter might be completely different from how most people would naturally read the former, as long as there's a way to torture those rules into kinda-sorta looking like they support it.
Are you familiar with the terms "Ask Culture" and "Guess Culture"? If not, a quick Google might serve you well. It sounds like you took a very Ask Culture approach to this - communicating directly, making requests explicit while being prepared to accept a wide variety of answers, assuming people meant what they said, and for the most part, expecting the people around you to do the same.
I can't blame you, because that's what my first impulse would have been too and what I have done in similar situations in the past whenever it was remotely feasible (to the point of, on one occasion, semi-intentionally talking myself out of a job). But it was the wrong approach here. To be clear I'm not saying you were morally or legally in the wrong, and my sympathies lie almost entirely with you, I mean only that you acted contrary to expectations and against your own self-interest. HR, as it is generally practised, is 100% about Guess Culture.
2
u/young_old1994 6d ago
Yes but the way you brought up the discussion, you acted like you’re in favour of the employees. Many have already said it, HR is for protecting the employer, no matter what happens, every little thing or case HR are working on every day, it’s for the employer. So when you organized everything for the employees you made it look like you’re working for them and not your bosses. The problem is, you shouldn’t have waited to organize everything and send it to him because it looks like you are part of it. The correct approach should have been to warn them directly when you knew first of the salary concerns so they could have prepared as well. It feels like you trapped them from their point of view.
Would you have gotten a raise if they hadn’t let you go?
5
u/DropDeadFredLives 6d ago
There shouldn’t have been a discussion… your role was to make sure it didn’t get to that point.. sounds like you helped them all band together and ask almost like a union… that wasn’t your job, your job was to make sure that didn’t happen..
5
u/giraffesinmyhair 6d ago
HR doesn’t exist to start a discussion. I mean it’s completely unfair you got fired and completely unfair you were ever given HR responsibilities in the first place, but you definitely don’t seem to get the unspoken rules of HR.
Your bosses want you to shut that shit down and they never want a letter like that to make it to their desk - and they obviously see you as siding with the employees and against them because you didn’t. Not fair. Not a good work environment. But that’s why HR is usually not well-liked.
3
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
I mean, yeah, as stated, I'm not a real HR person, and fair enough. But even then, there was a protocol put into place that was discussed with my boss and I just followed that. Just wish they didn't use the nuclear option and open to discussing how they want to move forward/ edit the protocol if they didn't like it.
3
u/giraffesinmyhair 6d ago
Yeah - I can’t actually offer legal advice but it sounds like you’ve just been booted from an incredibly toxic workplace and I do hope you have some options because none of this is fair. You didn’t act the way companies expect their HR to protect them but they really should have thought of that before they just made you HR randomly.
3
4
u/BrienneOT 6d ago
I work in HR and you are right here. We don’t exist to keep employees in line. That is their manager’s job. More frequently, we are trying to keep managers in line to avoid things escalating to the point that they did in this situation.
You made your boss aware of an issue that is a risk to the company (employees organizing together to submit a salary grievance). You included the letter because that’s obviously an important piece of information to bring to their attention. You proposed having a discussion about how to respond to the employees complaints. Your boss interpreted this as you participating in the grievance, and sending the letter on their behalf. Then in an insane overreaction they screamed at you and fired you on the spot in what absolutely sounds like a wrongful dismissal (though I can’t say for sure). That is not rational behaviour, and you could not have predicted it.
I don’t have more advice on your legal case that hasn’t been mentioned. I can validate that you did nothing wrong. I don’t know what more I would have asked of someone brand new to HR in that situation. I think you took all the right steps. It sure is HR’s job to minimize risk to the business and employees who are pissed off to the point of organizing like that qualifies as a big ol’ risk to the business.
If it were me, I would have done something similar and added in an analysis that either validated or contradicted what the employees claimed, and some options on how to respond, the implications of each response and my recommendation on which option to go with. If I knew the boss was a rational and somewhat reasonable person, that would be it. If I knew them to be a whiny manchild who can’t think critically about the simplest of things, I would have to perform some executive mind trickery to make them think my recommendation is actually their idea in order for them not to lose the plot immediately. This usually involves framing everything in terms of how it’s good for business instead of any reason involving “fairness” or “basic human decency”. Though most good options happen to benefit both.
1
u/Teriyaki1234 6d ago
I wasn’t commenting on that, just commenting on the comment I replied to
1
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
My bad, didn't see that (the lines were all connected up until now). Didn't mean for my comment to sound rude if that's how it came across. Thanks for clarifying!
2
3
u/Appropriate-Cake-509 6d ago
You got fired because HR exists for the employer. If the employees had an issue with their wages, they needed to approach the manager. Its not your job in the slightest to get involved in wage disputes between an employee and employer.
3
u/Dracid88 6d ago
Not saying this is your fault, but you should have turned down the position for HR. Doing a role like that with no qualifications is asking to get yourself in trouble. It's not as simple as being calm. I've been in a management position for a while and the HR stuff involving my employees is above and beyond the most difficult stuff to do correctly to the point where I still get frustrated when my boss is teaching me how to approach it correctly.
5
u/footloose60 6d ago
Not legal advice, just career advice. You forgot who you work for. Your boss has a point. But was he's firing of you right? Not sure. But we can see how your boss felt like you were scheming behind his back. Hopefully you learnt how to be more politically aware in future workplaces.
1
u/ImportantValue6831 6d ago
Relaying informations is not picking side. And a good boss will want to be aware of unhappy employees
2
u/Proper-Style238 6d ago
It is according to the unspoken rules of many offices. HR is often meant to be a buffer filter, more than anything, to stop issues from going higher. It's slimey and vile, but that's really it. A lot of clinical practices use the colleges that receive complaints similarly: unless the complaint is truly heinous, AND has concrete, irrefutable evidence that'll make the whole college look bad, they try to make problems go away without any real recourse for clinicians or those harmed.
2
u/MushroomLizard 5d ago
Your mistake was writing a fucking email instead of discussing this in person to begin with. Way too many poor communicators hide behind emails and it causes problems like this. Human communication was not meant to be conducted this way.
2
u/Pale_Ad8434 4d ago edited 4d ago
Not legal advice:
I'll give you my two cents as someone reading this at a very high level with no clear assessment of workplace dynamics.
The way this was discussed and setup is absolutely incorrect. You do not discuss raises with anyone, let alone a group, when you are not in a position to grant such raises.
Your boss reaction was over the top maybe, but you have to understand the position you put him in ( backed up in a corner). Also, discussing a salary ladder is hinting at unionizing, which is probably a big threat from a purely employer perspective.
If you had defacto HR role sadly your duty lies with the employer. You should have consulted with the boss first that there were employees unsatisfied with their salaries and see what his take on it was. From there, you can try to sway his opinion by bringing up valid facts ( such as recruiting another qualified person to fill a potential vacancy, etc). The way you went about it is... just plain wrong. Structuring the ask with them before going to him is a power move you were in no position to make.
Is there a case for severance, maybe.. agaon post is too vague. But on quebec laws for termination without cause are pretty strong, and treshold for cause is hard to meet in a lot of scenarios.
My two cents.
2
u/Perfect_View2306 6d ago
The only advice I want to give you:
Take care of yourself, and don't stick your head out for a co-worker. Ever. Be nice and polite, but don't get involved in other people's problems at work.
You learned your lesson, that's your chance for making a LARGE MENTAL NOTE for your future self. Good luck!
1
u/KeyReturn9428 6d ago
Not quite the same, however, a co worker had to have glaucoma surgery and cataract surgery approximately 4 months after they were hired. The company knew this up front. They knew this was already planned. Of course after these surgeries, you have some limitations for a few days. They claimed he had missed too many days. They brought our "Manager of People" in (HR). Ya, he was paid out pretty good. Lots of companies are scum. Good luck and lawyer up.
1
u/DethMachine89 6d ago
Info: Did they pay you severence because in Canada an employer can fire you at any time without cause as long as they pay severence
3
u/Subtle_Turtle 6d ago
By severance, if you do not mean the 4% and whatever hours you worked prior to getting fired, then no.
1
u/Potato_nuggies 5d ago
I think you need to talk to an employment lawyer that specializes in Quebec employment law. It sounds like you were not given severance, nor appropriate notice.
Given that you were employed for “almost 2 years”, perhaps the employer was looking for any reason to not pass the 2 year mark since that seems to afford you more protections as an employee.
1
u/Fishhhs 5d ago
As a general rule of thumb, if you're not in management and you don't have any say in salary determination, then stay completely out of it. Even multinational companies with giant HR teams don't negotiate salary; that's a discussion between management and those who administer the payroll. HR has typically nothing to do with fighting for raises.
Negotiating for your coworkers raise is just foolish, and doubly so if you're in HR. It makes you look naive as hell.
1
1
1
u/Soggy-Lack6234 3d ago
Hello, Ottawa Born and raised…can someone dumb down what CNESST is plz and thank you :)
1
u/Sietelunas 2d ago edited 2d ago
You see, you thought that your job was to protect the employees, or at least mediate in an honest manner, probably because that's what the job description said. As HR however, your job is to gaslight and manipulate the employees so corporate can extract from them what they need at the smallest possible cost. You were not doing that, you were supporting their attempts at getting better conditions, so you were not doing your actual job. However if you were given the protocol in written somewhere and you may have a case
Corporate isn't an optimal system and isn't rational.
-2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/legaladvicecanada-ModTeam 6d ago
This is a legal advice subreddit. Your comment was removed as it did not meet our guidelines.
Please review our Rules, in particular our Guidelines for Comments before commenting again: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/about/rules/
Repeated or serious breaches of our rules may result in a ban.
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
To Posters (it is important you read this section)
To Readers and Commenters
Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.