Canadian Employment Law Today

PM40065782 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian www.employmentlawtoday.com January 20, 2016 Long-time worker reinstated after dismissal for theft AN ONTARIO worker has been reinstated after being dismissed for stealing equip- ment he thought was going to be thrown out anyway. Harry Dejong, 65, was an industrial mill- wright for Lanxess, a synthetic rubber pro- ducer. e facility where Dejong worked was in Sarnia, Ont., and made butyl rubber for the tire industry and pharmaceutical prod- ucts. He was hired in 1969 and had a clean disciplinary record other than receiving cen- sure for working too many hours once. Over his many years with the company, Lanxess considered him a reliable and good worker. e Lanxess facility was fenced in and had a main gate staff ed by security personnel 24 hours per day and a smaller gate to a com- pound which was staff ed only Mondays to Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. e smaller gate was monitored by the main gate staff via camera the rest of the time. Lanxess had a policy allowing employees to drive company vehicles off -site "by per- mission and for company business purposes only." Breach of this policy was considered theft and would result in discipline. Employ- ees who had to work overtime were allowed to take company vehicles to one of three des- ignated restaurants nearby but nowhere else. Another policy stipulated that all compa- ny property, including materials designated for scrap, could not be taken off -site without documented permission. Employees could bid on surplus materials the company some- times disposed of and they could be given scrap material, but they needed an "advice of shipment" form — or "no value slip" for scrap — from the Lanxess store operations supervisor to remove material from the premises. Dejong was aware of the policies, as dem- onstrated in January 2015 when he asked for an advice of shipment form for railway ties lying outside the smaller gate. ough he was told they were not company property Worker told to hit the road after drug test refusal Company policy stated refusals would result in discipline including dismissal, but positive test would bring assistance BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ALBERTA company had just cause to dismiss an employee for refusing to take a drug and alcohol test following a workplace incident as specifi ed by company policy, an adjudicator has ruled. Dallas Mielke was a professional truck operator hauling loads for Entrec Corpora- tion, a heavy haul and lift company based in Bonnyville, Alta. Much of the company's business involved moving and lifting large items for clients in the oil and gas industry. Hired in 2010, Mielke had a few instances of discipline on his record, including when he scraped the side of a trailer with a backhoe he was unloading, a minor collision between his and another truck and an occasion when he was issued a non-compliance form for not wearing his safety glasses and not signing on to a safety meeting. Terms of settlement upheld after cause allegations pg. 3 Settlement supersedes after-acquired information with Tim Mitchell CREDIT: SOMKKU/SHUTTERSTOCK Dealing with the aftermath pg. 4 Formal workplace restoration following a disruptive workplace incident is the fl ip side of dealing with employment law issues ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Revealing information during harassment investigation EMPLOYEE on page 7 » POSITIVE on page 6 »

• Cover