MANY EMPLOYEES WHO FACE UNPROVEN WARNINGS (RESIGN).

10 per cent less, pay can be cut accordingly. Many employers do not do that, especially for a short-term basis, as it has an obvious egregious impact on morale. But they have a legal right to do so.

In the same way, if an employee’s medical condition permits them to work reduced hours, they must return on that basis with a proportionate reduction in pay. In short, the advice provided instead. However, courts often recognize that employees who submit hasty resignations when faced with unproven allegations of misconduct have not legally resigned. Rather these are resignations given under pressure or duress, which are almost never upheld.” That is not true. It is true that an employee who submits a resignation emotionally, on the spur of the moment, can rescind it if they do so reasonably promptly. Employers, for their part, are not permitted to shout “Eureka!” and quickly accept that resignation with impunity. But it is not true that a resignation, in response to unfounded allegations of misconduct, or even disciplinary warnings, is legally ineffective. Many employees who face unproven warnings will resign, deciding that they would rather leave voluntarily than potentially be ultimately terminated. Others, faced with allegations of misconduct, decide they no longer wish to work in that environment. Yet others resign believing that future promotions or bonuses will be unlikely. Contrary to the legal advice provided, those resignations are voluntary and will be upheld if challenged.

It is only if an allegation of misconduct is so unwarranted and repeated as to create a toxic work environment, one that no average employee could reasonably put up with, that a court would conclude the employee was constructively dismissed. There is no licence for an employee receiving a warning letter, even if unproven, to resign and claim constructive dismissal. In short, resignations in response to such a warning are generally voluntary.

The same lawyer stated that “employees tendering their resignation are sometimes free to withdraw it and continue working as before, as long as the employer has not already accepted the resignation and taken steps to move on. For example, an employee who gives two weeks’ notice of his or her resignation is entitled to change his or her mind, but only if the employer has not already hired or promoted a replacement.”

This suggests that if an employee resigns, in anger, on the spur of the moment and the employer immediately accepts it and promotes a subordinate into their place, the employee can no longer withdraw the resignation. That is also not the case. Whether the employer quickly fills the position or not is irrelevant to an employee’s right to withdraw an emotionally and hastily conceived resignation. In fact, an employer moving with alacrity to accept the resignation and replace the employee is something the courts have discouraged. That employer may actually strengthen the employee’s case.

Of course, being given the option of resigning or being fired is a dismissal. Goading an employee into resigning is not a resignation, but it becomes one if the employee does not rescind it and attempt to resume work within a reasonably short period of time. If the employer does not permit that return, then it becomes a dismissal.

Another piece of erroneous legal advice in that column