Canadian Employment Law Today | 3
Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016
Cases and Trends
Helicopter mechanic grounded
by employer's over-reaction
Tense encounter during client representative's audit of facility
didn't cause harm to employer and didn't warrant dismissal: Court
BY JEFFREY R. SMITH
A British Columbia company must pay a
former employee almost $30,000 for dis-
missing him without cause after he was
terse with a potential customer but no harm
was done, the British Columbia Supreme
Court has ruled.
D'Arcy Saliken, 54, was a helicopter me-
chanic for 21 years who worked for Cana-
dian Heli Structures. In August 2013, the
company was acquired by Alpine Aerotech,
a supplier of helicopter support and aircraft
maintenance services based in Kelowna,
B.C. Saliken worked at the company's facility
in Abbotsford, B.C.
Alpine Aerotech policy, which was out-
lined in the employee handbook, stated that
employees were expected to accept respon-
sibility for their conduct and "to be account-
able for their actions on the job site."
In January 2015, Saliken requested more
training on a particular model of helicop-
ter. He was granted a three-week training
program at the plant in Texas that manu-
factured the model. As part of the deal, Sa-
liken agreed to sign a training bond in which
Alpine Aerotech would cover the cost of the
training as long as Saliken continued to work
for it for one year after completion. If he
failed to pass, resigned in less than one year
or became unsuitable to work for Alpine
Aerotech, he would have to repay a portion
of the training cost depending on how long
he worked after the training.
Saliken successfully completed the training
and went back to Alpine Aerotech with no in-
tention to leave. He had no disciplinary issues
on his record and the company didn't indicate
it had any problems with his performance.
In April 2015, a potential client of Alpine
Aerotech conducted audits of the company's
two facilities to ensure it had the necessary
expertise and equipment for the mainte-
nance and repair of its helicopters. e cli-
ent's representative audited the Abbotsford
facility on April 8. Saliken and other employ-
ees were notified of the audit but were not
given any further instructions.
Tense encounter during audit of facilities
e representative toured the Abbotsford
facility with the shop manager and a com-
pany quality control manager. Saliken was
helping work on a set of levers in the shop
when they first passed by him to visit the
other mechanic in the shop. ey returned
MANAGER on page 7 ยป
