In a recent decision, Steel v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, 2015 BCCA 127, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the termination of a long service employee who was terminated for a single violation of the employer's privacy policy.
Facts
At the time of her termination, Ms. Steel was a 21 year employee of Coast Capital Savings Credit Union ("Coast Capital"), working as part of the IT Helpdesk team. Steel's position provided her with unfettered access to every document in Coast Capital's database, which included access to the personal electronic folders of other employees on Coast Capital's network. These personal electronic folders contained both confidential personal information and business-related documents.
Employees, including Steel, were forbidden by Coast Capital's privacy policy from accessing any other employee's personal folder without that employee's consent. Coast Capital had a detailed protocol in place that was to be followed in the event that Helpdesk employees were required to access another employee's personal electronic folder.
When Steel became curious about the assignment of highly sought after parking spaces, she accessed a document in her manager's personal folder that contained a parking priority list. Steel's actions came to light after her manager attempted to access the parking document and learned it was being remotely viewed by Steel. Steel acknowledged that she opened the document without permission and Coast Capital dismissed her for cause. Steel sued, alleging that she had been wrongfully dismissed.
Trial Court Decision
The trial judge dismissed the case. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's (SCC) decision in McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38 (McKinley), the court found that Steel's actions amounted to just cause. The trial judge emphasised the importance of trust in the banking industry and noted that Steel's conduct violated this trust in two ways. First, she opened a confidential document in another employee's file for her own purposes, not as part of her duties and not at anyone's request. Second, she violated the protocols that governed situations in which remote access of such documents was undertaken. Steel appealed.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The Court began its analysis by reviewing the trial court's application of the SCC's decision in McKinley. The Court noted that accessing confidential documents in accordance with Coast Capital's privacy policy was a fundamental obligation of a Helpdesk employee. The Court agreed with the trial judge that this fundamental obligation placed Steel in a position of substantial trust and made the continuing existence of that trust fundamental to the viability of the employment relationship. It was open to the trial judge, based on the fundamental nature of this obligation, to find that the misconduct had resulted in a fundamental breakdown of the employment relationship.
Takeaways for Employers
This is the second decision this year in which the Court of Appeal has upheld the termination of a long-term employee for a single act of misconduct (see Roe v. British Columbia Ferry Services Ltd., 2015 BCCA 1).
This decision is encouraging for employers who are faced with an employee who has engaged in actions that undermine the trust necessary for a working employment relationship. Such actions could include the violation of an important employment policy, particularly where the employee is in a position of trust.
While the Court of Appeal did not address the level of trust required of employees in the banking industry, it also did not overturn the trial judge's broad application of this principle. Thus, the question regarding extent of this obligation in this industry remains open.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
