Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, 2019 Petrunik contacted Candu management two days later to confirm that he wasn't re- signing. e company maintained he had resigned but would "dismiss" his resigna- tion if he agreed to complete the training before returning to work. Petrunik said he would take the training on certain condi- tions: he wanted a reason in writing why NEW training was required for a non- NEW worker, a list of radiation sources he might come into contact with and what measures were being taken to protect him from radiation exposure. Candu declined to meet the conditions. A few weeks later, on April 10, Petrunik informed Candu that he had reflected on the matter, apologized for his behaviour and said he was prepared to take the train- ing unconditionally if he was reinstated. Candu said it was "too little, too late" and didn't think it was sincere, so it didn't invite back. Petrunik then filed a claim of unjust dismissal under the Canada Labour Code. e adjudicator found that Petrunik's conduct leading up to his dismissal was "insubordinate and warranted a disci- plinary response by the employer." Mul- tiple members of Candu management met with Petrunik and tried to assure him that he wouldn't be made a NEW and his con- cerns were unnecessary. In addition, Pe- trunik acknowledged that his behaviour was insubordinate and he should have done the training. e adjudicator also found that Pe- trunik's claim that he simply wanted a good reason for the training wasn't true — he was "repeatedly informed that the reason for the training was to ensure that [Candu] employees had some basic knowledge about the risks associated with radiation exposure." Petrunik was given a reason, but he just didn't agree with it, said the adjudicator. In addition, the adjudicator noted that there was no convincing evidence that Pe- trunik's concerns over the training were well-founded — Candu was within its rights to require the training and there was no threat to his safety. Petrunik also didn't directly raise the fact that he had previ- ously signed a NEW form — had he done so, management probably could have ad- dressed that concern as well. However, the adjudicator added that Pe- trunik only refused a task that was "tangen- tially related to his job duties," the dispute wasn't in front of other Candu employees and he had been encouraged by his em- ployer to adopt a questioning attitude. ese factors all lessened the seriousness of the insubordination, as well as the fact that Candu didn't implement any progressive discipline before it terminated Petrunik's employment — he wasn't aware his em- ployment was in jeopardy and wasn't given a chance to change his mind before being fired, said the adjudicator, adding that after some reflection Petrunik apologized and was willing to take the training. Candu was ordered to reinstate Pe- trunik's employment with compensation for lost pay and benefits, with a two-month unpaid disciplinary suspension. For more information see: • Petrunik and Candu Energy Inc., Re (July 22, 2019), Doc. YM2707-11352 (Can. Lab. Code Adj.). October 23, 2019 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: KEN FELEPCHUK/Shutterstock ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jeffrey R. Smith Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.smith@keymedia.com, or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com for more information.

• Cover