Worker claims verbal withdrawal cancelled written resignation during company sale

Alberta's Court of Justice recently dealt with an employment law case involving a worker's attempt to withdraw a resignation letter after her employer was sold to a new company.

The case highlighted the legal principles surrounding resignation withdrawal and the timing of employer acceptance during corporate transitions.

The worker argued she had verbally withdrawn her written resignation during a meeting with representatives of the purchasing company, claiming she had communicated her intention to stay and continue working.

She maintained that this verbal communication effectively cancelled her earlier written notice, entitling her to wrongful dismissal damages when the new employer ultimately accepted her original resignation months later.

However, the employer disputed this version of events, arguing that no such withdrawal had occurred and that the worker's resignation remained valid throughout the transition period.

The company maintained that while discussions took place about potential future employment, the worker never actually retracted her formal notice.

Legal framework for resignation withdrawals

The worker had been employed by the original company since June 2008. On 29 August 2022, she submitted a written resignation letter stating:

"Please accept this as my formal resignation, effective June 30th 2023." This gave her employer nearly 10 months' notice of her intention to leave.

The original company was purchased by a new employer in December 2022.

During this transition, the worker met with the new employer's chief operating officer on 6 December 2022 as part of the company's evaluation of existing staff. The timing of this meeting became crucial to the legal analysis.

The court explained that courts use both subjective and objective tests: "subjectively, did the employee intend to resign; and objectively, viewing all the circumstances, would a reasonable employer have understood that the employee had resigned?"

The legal framework recognises that employees may withdraw resignations under certain circumstances, but only "until such time as the employer accepts it or, where there is no acceptance, until the employer relies on it to its detriment."

Timing challenges in withdrawal attempts

The timing of the alleged withdrawal became decisive. The worker testified that during her meeting with the new employer's chief operating officer, she communicated her intention to stay:

"I did tell him that I was going to stay and I look forward to the opportunity that [the new employer] has to offer me." When asked directly whether she explicitly withdrew her resignation, the worker responded: "I told him I was staying, yes."

However, the chief operating officer provided contradictory testimony. He said the worker "was adamant that she was going to leave." When asked whether the worker ever told him she was retracting her resignation, he answered: "Never."

Most importantly, he explained: "No. And I wouldn't have been in a position at that stage because we didn't own the company. We hadn't closed yet."

The share purchase transaction had not yet closed on 6 December 2022. The chief operating officer was conducting evaluation activities but had no legal authority to accept or reject resignations from the original company's employees.

Any verbal communication by the worker to withdraw her resignation "was ineffective to recant the resignation of her employment with [the original company]" because she never advised anyone at the original company about withdrawing her notice.

Documentary evidence undermines withdrawal claims

The court examined email correspondence that provided objective evidence.

Just two days after the alleged verbal withdrawal, the worker sent an email stating: "I am willing to put in my time as mentioned and retract my resignation if I receive an offer with [the new employer]."

The conditional language contradicted her claim of having already withdrawn the resignation.

On 4 January 2023, she wrote: "I would be willing to recant my resignation that comes due the end of June."

Even six months later, the worker wrote: "there was a place for me as I was willing to recant my resignation and you were fully aware." The phrase "willing to recant" rather than "had recanted" proved significant.

The conditional nature of her position remained consistent throughout all communications.

She expressed willingness to withdraw her resignation only if she received a suitable offer from the new employer, but never actually did so.

Employer acceptance complicates withdrawal process

On 2 March 2023, the new employer's representative formally advised the worker they were "formally accepting your resignation letter for the date that you listed" and that 30 June would be her last day.

The worker did not object or advise that she had withdrawn her resignation.

The court examined whether the original company had accepted the resignation before any alleged withdrawal.

The chief operating officer testified that the original supervisor had accepted the resignation and "it was fairly well known amongst the management team that she had resigned."

The worker's resignation letter had been placed in the data room for the new employer's evaluation activities.

As the court noted, the evidence showed that "subsequent to August 29, 2022 both [the worker] and [the original company] acknowledged and conducted their affairs on the basis of [the worker] leaving her employment on June 30, 2023."

Court rejects all withdrawal arguments

The judge rejected the worker's argument for implied withdrawal based on the December 2022 meeting. The court stated:

"The Court does not accept [the worker's] submission relating to implied revocation for the simple reason that she continuously, directly and clearly maintained and communicated to [the new employer] that she would only recant her resignation if she received a suitable offer. [The worker] was willing to recant her resignation notice, but she never did."

The judge found no uncertainty regarding the worker's intentions: "[The worker] submitted a clear and unequivocal letter of resignation to [the original company] on August 29, 2022. Her resignation was effective on June 30, 2023. She did not withdraw or recant her resignation at any time prior to June 2, 2023, her last day of work."

The court concluded: "No evidence of any nature, oral or documentary, was tendered indicating that [the worker] withdrew and recanted her notice of resignation." The final ruling was definitive:

"[The worker] resigned and terminated the employment relationship on August 29, 2022. She was not wrongfully dismissed and has no claim for damages. The Civil Claim is dismissed."

This case demonstrates that conditional expressions of willingness to withdraw a resignation differ fundamentally from actually retracting it.