We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On March 13, 2012, the Superior Court of Quebec rejected the
union's Motion for Judicial Review following an arbitration
decision which confirmed an employer's decision to terminate an
employee for having used the company's telephone system for
personal use.
The employee, a receptionist working for Société des
établissements de plein air du Québec
(Sépaq)(the Employer) for over 10
years, was dismissed for cause following an investigation which
confirmed that the employee made several local and long distance
telephone calls during his hours of work, using the Employer's
telephone system and, at the Employer's expense.
The union filed a grievance
on the employee's behalf and invoked the principle of
progressive discipline considering the employee's clean
employee file. The union argued that the employee's actions did
not constitute a serious fault and that the dismissal was imposed
because the employee refused to cooperate during the investigation
process.
The Employer argued that given that the employee is in a
position where he is not directly supervised and is given a lot of
autonomy, it is even more important that it be able to maintain a
high level of trust in the employee. The Employer maintained that
it dismissed the employee for cause as a result of the
employee's breach of his duty of loyalty, for using the
Employer's telephone system for personal use, for theft of
company time and for having lied during the investigation
process.
The arbitrator decided that the employee had committed a serious
fault, that his actions resulted in the irreparable rupture of the
relationship of trust between the employee and the Employer and
that the decision of the Employer to immediately dismiss the
employee for having used the Employer's telephone system during
his working hours without authorization or justification was
justified.
This decision serves as a reminder to employees that the
improper use of an employer's property and theft of time can
result in the immediate termination of an employee's employment
for cause without regard to the principle of progressive
discipline.
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The recent Superior Court decision of McCready v. De Dwa Dehs Nyes provides interesting observations about the rights of independent contractors upon termination.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A British Columbia arbitrator has denied an application by the United Steelworkers for an interim injunction that would prohibit Teck Coal from performing random drug and alcohol tests at several coal mines until the union’s grievance of that policy could be addressed.
