An equipment firm with a location in Crossfield will not have to pay a former employee more than $5,000 in termination compensation after Alberta’s Employment Standards Appeal Body ruled she walked away from her job without formally quitting or being fired.
In a written decision released on April 3, Vice-Chair William J. Armstrong, K.C., found that Crystal Leigh Connolly "repudiated" her employment contract with Tyalta Industries Inc. by failing to return to work after an altercation on July 28, 2023, and a subsequent meeting with company leadership days later. The tribunal concluded Connolly left her job voluntarily after delivering what it described as an "ultimatum" and receiving no formal changes in response.
While the panel revoked an earlier order requiring Tyalta to pay Connolly $5,004 in termination pay, it upheld her entitlement to $647.50 in unpaid overtime. The panel also reduced a statutory fee Tyalta was ordered to pay from $565.15 to $100.
The case stems from a dispute between Connolly and her employer over how her departure was characterized — and whether she was owed compensation under Alberta’s Employment Standards Code. The decision, filed as Tyalta Industries Inc. v Connolly ABESAB 6, was heard by video conference on Feb. 27 and issued April 3.
Tyalta operates in Crossfield, Alta., selling, renting and servicing heavy equipment for the aggregate industry. Connolly worked there as a service writer, responsible for collecting data used in billing and financial analysis. She was initially hired in 2017, left in 2018 for another job, and was rehired in 2019. By mid-2023, she was earning $36 per hour.
Her last day at the office was Friday, July 28, 2023. That morning, Connolly was involved in a workplace altercation with a technician. She later told the tribunal she feared for her personal safety due to the technician’s language and his refusal to let her leave the office.
After heading upstairs to speak with management — and finding the general manager absent — Connolly told an accounting clerk she was "done with this," had "had enough," and was "out of here," according to testimony from the clerk and confirmed by Connolly. She punched out at 8:33 a.m. and left the building.
No formal resignation letter was submitted, and no termination letter was issued.
Over the weekend, Connolly sent a text message to a co-worker expressing frustration and referencing compensation and management issues. She did not contact company leadership until Tuesday, Aug. 1.
That day, she met with company president Craig Kergen at a coffee shop after hours. During the meeting, she spoke about her dissatisfaction with the company. Kergen testified that he told her "it was up to her" whether she returned to work.
That evening, Connolly sent a seven-page email to Kergen outlining her grievances and stating: "I am unable to perform my duties and will not be in until major issues are resolved." The tribunal concluded that this email reflected her decision not to return under existing conditions.
Armstrong wrote: "It is difficult to read the conclusion of her email as anything other than she would not be returning to her job in the foreseeable future because the Appellant would not or could not correct the problems she detailed."
While the decision acknowledged that Connolly had not formally resigned, her failure to return was found to constitute contract repudiation. "The Respondent had repudiated the contract of employment and is not entitled to pay in lieu of termination notice," the ruling states.
By Aug. 11, Tyalta issued her final paycheque and a Record of Employment coded as "quit."
Connolly disputed that she had resigned, noting she had left personal belongings in her office. The general manager testified he was unaware of the items and committed during the hearing to returning them once a list was provided.
While the panel sided with the employer on the termination issue, it ruled in Connolly’s favour on her unpaid overtime claim.
She argued that she regularly worked through her lunch breaks due to workload pressure. The company maintained that the break was mandatory and overtime required approval. However, time records showed she had worked through lunch on 15 of her last 20 workdays — and had been inconsistently paid for that time.
Armstrong found a "clear difference between what the Appellant says were the rules for the payment of overtime and the actual practice" and upheld the Employment Standards Officer’s calculation of $647.50 owing for 12 unpaid hours.
The decision also noted prior tension between Connolly and Tyalta management, including a conflict over a Record of Employment during the pandemic and repeated complaints about chemical fumes from a parts washer. In 2024, Occupational Health and Safety visited the site following a complaint Connolly acknowledged making. The agency ordered Tyalta to implement missing violence and harassment prevention policies.
The parts washer in question was no longer in use at the time of the inspection. The tribunal made no findings on the OHS issue or on Connolly’s unsuccessful disability and WCB claims.
Ultimately, Armstrong concluded the employment relationship ended not through formal resignation or dismissal, but because Connolly chose not to return after her demands went unmet.
Sign up to get the latest local news headlines delivered directly to your inbox every afternoon.
Send your news tips, story ideas, pictures, and videos to news@discoverairdrie.com. You can also message and follow us on Twitter: @AIR1061FM.
DiscoverAirdrie encourages you to get your news directly from your trusted source by bookmarking this page and downloading the DiscoverAirdrie app.