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
An employee who had been previously disciplined for threatening
to bring "ammo" into work, was properly dismissed where
shortly afterwards he committed an unsafe act and was repeatedly
dishonest.
The "ammo" violence threat had resulted in a previous
arbitration award in which the arbitrator reinstated the employee
with a 128-day suspension and strict last-chance conditions. That
arbitrator, who found that the employee had lied to the employer in
its "ammo" threat investigation, had stated that "it
is sensible to make any reinstatement conditional on future good
behaviour".
Five days after being reinstated, the employee committed an
unsafe act at work in relation to the use of a "spreader
bar". He had also walked out of a meeting with company
management, and was again dishonest to his employer in the course
of its investigation. The employer fired the employee and the union
again grieved the firing.
Ruling on the second dismissal, Arbitrator Peter Chauvin held
that the grievor, who did not testify at the hearing, "has not
done anything to cause me to believe that he accepts that he did
anything wrong in connection with his use of the spreader bar, his
dishonest statements to Mr. Hastings, or his insubordination in
walking out of the meeting with Mr. Lepine, Mr. White and Mr.
Black. The Grievor has clearly not in any way acknowledged this
misconduct, and has not shown any remorse or offered any apology
for it. Again, and quite to the contrary, the Grievor denied that
he engaged in any such misconduct to Mr. Hastings, and chose to not
testify at the arbitration hearing. In doing so, he certainly did
not acknowledge his misconduct, or show remorse for it, at the
arbitration hearing."
Arbitrator Chauvin also held that it was a "very serious
aggravating factor that the Grievor was not open and honest with
the Employer at the time of the investigation", particularly
as the previous arbitrator had held that the employee had been
dishonest in the employer's "ammo" investigation.
This decision demonstrates that employers are entitled to demand
honesty of employees during workplace investigations, and that
repeated dishonesty, whether or not combined with other
disciplinary offences, can justify dismissal.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
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 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.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
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 discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
Employment, Labour and Immigration Law in Canada - Chris Andree 
