Canadian Employment Law Today - sample

4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 CASE IN POINT: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL Employees fired for improper expense reports get big damage awards Board of directors, new executive director of Saskatchewan facility believed business trip was for personal reasons, but previous director had approved it BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A Saskatchewan employer must pay 24 and 20 months' notice, respectively, to two employees it fired for charging expenses for a business trip the employer believed was for personal reasons, because the trip was authorized by the employees' super- visor and they had no reason to believe it wasn't legitimate. Brian Swidrovich, 62, was the director of business development for the main arena facility in Saskatoon, Sask., that was initial- ly called Saskatchewan Place when it was constructed in 1988. William Antonishyn, 69, was the director of ticketing and busi- ness projects for the facility, which was run by the Saskatchewan Place Association (SPA), a non-profit corporation governed by up to 10 board members including Sas- katoon's mayor, city council members, and several members of the public. e SPA was focussed on managing the business and affairs of the facility, while the day-to- day operation was handled by an executive director and a management team that in- cluded Swidrovich and Antonishyn. Swidrovich's role as director of business development involved the marketing of building and event sponsorships and long- term bookings of the corporate suites in the arena. He had to develop and maintain professional relationships with other busi- nesses and sponsors with an eye to increas- ing revenue and profit for the facility and the SPA through event creation. Swidrov- ich began employment with the SPA in 1994 as an event co-ordinator, and his job evolved over the years into the director of business development. He also gained the title of director of an air show the facility was involved in and was managing director of two sponsored events held there. Antonishyn's role as director of ticketing and business projects was to manage the facility's box office functions, budgeting, accounting, ticketing, and management information systems. He was hired as con- troller when the facility opened in 1988 and worked his way up to the director of ticketing and business projects. Each member of Saskatchewan Place's management team was allowed an annual spending limit that didn't require the ex- ecutive director's approval. e limit was $15,000 for Swidrovich and Antonishyn, while the executive director could spend up to $25,000 without special approval from the SPA. Part of these amounts were used for business trips designed to foster positive professional relationships with existing sponsors and recruit new ones. ese trips were only occasion- ally reported to the SPA board if they fell within the spending limits, as the execu- tive director was the main conduit to the board and such communication was only as deemed necessary. Business trips with clients In 2009, Swidrovich came up with the idea for business trips with clients as a way to develop business through sponsorships — the SPA had developed a plan to be more aggressive and proactive in devel- oping relationships with new clients and socializing with existing clients. He and Antonishyn went on a business trip to Dal- las, Tex., with clients that year. ey took another trip in 2010, this time to Phoenix, Ari., that also had a purpose of gathering facility information for potential bids for Canadian Football League and National Hockey League franchises for Saskatoon. e executive director of Saskatchewan Place — at the time called the Credit Union Centre due to a sponsorship agreement — approved the trips. e management team of the facility believed that the networking associated with these trips had value and their cost was covered under the executive director's discretionary spending limit. In 2011, Swidrovich and Antonishyn planned another trip to Phoenix and the executive director was included, as he was planning his retirement and it would be the last business trip he would have. One of the clients organized most of the itiner- ary and took vacation time so he could go. Antonishyn almost didn't go because he had a lot of work to do at the time, but the executive director encouraged him —but Antonishyn did stop in Edmonton to meet with a representative of one of SPA's con- cession partners on the way. e executive director and Antonishyn were in Phoenix from Oct. 22 to 25, while Swidrovich and the client stayed until Oct. 28. As was nor- mal practice for such trips, Swidrovich and Antonishyn used SPA credit cards to cover certain expenses and the statements were sent to SPA's accountants. During the 2011 trip, Antonishyn con- tinued to work on his laptop computer to take care of certain matters, and when they went to a football game he made observa- tions and notes of the stadium's operation- al features. e executive director officially retired at the end of October 2011 and a new executive director, Will Lofdahl, succeeded him. Earlier in October, at a retirement par- ty for the departing executive director, Swidrovich was discussing SPA business with a board member when he mentioned he would be away later in the month on a "boys' trip" for the retiring director. e board member later told the board vice- chair about the remark and, concerned that SPA money was being used for a per- sonal trip, they brought it to the attention of Lofdahl when he took over. Swidrovich and Antonishyn submit- ted their expense reports from the trip for reimbursement, which totalled almost $8,000 including airfare, meals and drinks, golf fees, and football tickets. Lofdahl re- ported the expenses to the SPA board, adding that board members had told them taking the trip as a business expense would not be an appropriate use of SPA resources. Lofdahl based the latter point on the board member's recount of his conversation with Swidrovich at the retirement party. Employees surprised at investigation Lofdahl interviewed Swidrovich and An- tonishyn on Jan. 4, 2012, with the board chairperson present. e two men were told beforehand that they should be pre- pared to justify the legitimacy of the expenses connected to the 2011 trip to Phoenix. Both Swidrovich and Anton- ishyn were distressed over this develop- ment and made it clear the trip had been approved by the previous executive di- rector. ey both stated they believed the trip was justified and authorized, and Swidrovich denied being told expensing it was inappropriate. After the interviews, they were placed on administrative leave pending further investigation. Antonishyn was sufficiently bothered that he sent a full description of the trip and its purposes to the board and person-

• Cover