Quiet quitters were described as those who worked remotely, put in the bare minimum at their places of work and collected a paycheque until their performance – or lack thereof – was called out.
A few years later, the antithesis to this movement had emerged in the form of “quiet firing.”
According to Forbes Magazine, quiet firing can be described as a manager or employer “cutting workloads, blocking promotions, and stalling raises to nudge employees out the door without saying it outright.”
Essentially, employers make the workplace relatively unbearable to encourage employees to resign, instead of waiting for a termination package.
Political instability may lead Canadian employers to consider widespread reductions in workforce and quiet firing could be a tool used by some to lower termination costs. After all, an employee quitting is much cheaper than terminating one, particularly in Canada.
But the potential consequences for this kind of approach shouldn’t be ignored.
While quiet firing could be very difficult for an employee to prove, the process can drain internal company resources. More employees will engage HR, there will be higher use of employee assistance programs and spikes in overall employee complaints.
What’s worse, employees who feel targeted by a quiet firing may allege they are being singled out for bad faith or discriminatory reasons. Quiet firing a new parent or an employee who just returned from medical leave could be deemed to be retaliatory or an act of reprisal – a punishment for having taken a job-protected leave.
Instead of capitulating to a quiet firing, more employees are engaging legal counsel to determine if there is anything they can do to turn the tables. Many of the elements of a quiet firing could mirror conduct frequently seen in constructive dismissal claims.
Demotions are a classic example.
Both employers and employees should be aware of what could be viewed as a quiet firing in the workplace.
Examples of quiet firing can include:
Placed under investigation/administrative leave – Where employers remove employees from the workplace, investigate slowly, and fail to share transparent reasons for the need of the investigation;
Change in reporting relationship – Where an employee’s reporting line is changed and/or moved to report to someone less senior than before;
Material change to job duties – If an employee’s workload is reduced and an employee is taken off of key projects, meetings and/or the scope of responsibilities or headcount is narrowed;
Rogue bad performance review – When an employer rates an employee unfavourably one year where that employee consistently met and/or exceeded expectations in previous years, this could be considered an attempt to quiet fire the employee and lead to further legal considerations.
There are many other things an employer can do to try to quiet fire an employee. But it is, without a doubt, a bad business move.
As employees are becoming more savvy, more sophisticated and more inclined to call out the behaviour, employers should think twice before taking the quiet firing tool out of the toolbox.
Have a workplace problem? Maybe I can help! Email me at sunira@worklylaw.com and your question may be featured in a future column.
The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.
