Canadian Employment Law Today

November 25, 2015

Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 0 of 7

PM40065782 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian November 25, 2015 'Mean and cheap' employer must pay $250,000 to short-term worker AN ONTARIO company must pay a short- term employee more than $250,000 for bad- faith conduct in concocting unfounded al- legations of just cause when tensions arose over an adjustment to the price of the sale of the employee's business to the company. Alan Gordon sold the assets of his own business to Altus Group on Nov. 1, 2008. Al- tus hired him to continue in his position with a written employment contract for a three- year term, though there was a provision for termination with specifi ed payouts if it was without cause. e sale agreement also provided for an adjustment of the price by February 2010, based on the performance of the business following the transaction. As the deadline for adjusting the sale price approached, tensions increased. Gordon felt Altus was cheating him because it was indi- cating its calculations showed less money would be paid to him in the price adjustment. Gordon gave notice he was going to activate the arbitration clause in the sale contract. Altus claimed Gordon began speaking to senior staff in what the company considered "very derogatory terms" and he swore to the point where others found it hard to work with him. It also became aware of Gordon's potential confl ict of interest in lending mon- ey to a company with which Altus was do- ing business — contrary to provisions in the employee handbook — but Gordon claimed his manager told him he could continue with the loan as long as he didn't involve himself in the transaction. However, the manager denied giving permission to Gordon. Altus also learned Gordon employed a staff member who had been charged with fraud and felt Gordon had misled it on the nature of the charges. Gordon said the charges were within the employee's family and the issue had been a family dispute. Transfer to related company doesn't reduce service pg. 3 Employee worked in same job for family companies with Meghan McCreary CREDIT: SAIKO3P/SHUTTERSTOCK It's never okay - Preventing violence and harassment in the workplace pg. 4 The battle against workplace harassment and violence is heating up — on the news, in the courts and in legislatures ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Employees off-duty fi ght NO WARNINGS on page 7 » Em Em E p mp m l pl p o lo l y o y o m y m y e me m n en e t nt n Law aw a To To T Dock worker fi red for sneaky snack Worker misled investigation after eating damaged stock of chocolate bars BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ARBITRATOR has upheld the dis- missal of an Ontario worker who was fi red for eating a chocolate bar that was supposed to be reported as damaged goods and not telling the truth about it. Kian Deslauriers was a dock worker for Trans X, a Mississauga, Ont.-based trans- portation company. Deslauriers initially worked for Trans X through a manpower agency from September 2003 to January 2005, when he was hired full-time. He was responsible primarily for loading and un- loading trucks at a Trans X shipping facility and in 2013 he was promoted to the position of lead hand, in which he temporarily fi lled in for supervisors when there were none on duty while continuing with his regular dock worker duties. As a lead hand, Deslauriers was trained on Trans X's policy regarding dam- aged product, overages, and short- ages discovered by its employees. e process included photograph- ing damaged product and place in a specifi c secure area so it could be re- turned to the customer. Lead hands were expected to ensure employees followed this process. Deslauriers had a relatively clean discipline record over his 10 years of service, with the exception of a last chance agreement he was given in July 2014. e agreement expressed concern with his hon- esty and trustworthiness, but was based on a misunderstanding over when Deslauri- ers was expected to return from a vacation. Deslaurier later claimed he signed the last chance agreement under duress and the misunderstanding was a mistake, not based on dishonesty. On Sept. 13, 2014, Deslauriers was work- ing a regular shift but was not performing lead hand duties, as a lead hand was already there. Another employee discovered a box of chocolate bars wedged in a pallet that had been shipped by a candy company. e employee reported fi nding the chocolate CHOCOLATE on page 6 »

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - November 25, 2015