Canadian Employment Law Today

PM40065782 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian www.employmentlawtoday.com October 26, 2016 Employer ordered to pay back money deducted to retrieve company vehicle AN ADJUDICATOR has ordered a New Brunswick company to pay back the money it deducted from an employee's fi nal pay- cheque to cover the cost of retrieving a ve- hicle he left at diff erent location than where the company wanted it. Bruno Martin was a truck driver for Donnelly Farms, a provider of refrigerated freight services based in Lansdowne, N.B. When he was hired in November 2014, he signed a document – described by Don- nelly Farms as an employment contract – that stipulated if he quit without two weeks' notice or was fi red and didn't complete the two-week notice period, he wouldn't re- ceive any bonuses owing to him. He signed the contract a few days after he was hired and immediately was assigned a truck that was in Moncton, where Martin lived. e contract also stated that if Martin didn't want to work or Donnelly Farms anymore, he would return his truck to the company. If the truck wasn't returned, the company would deduct $2 per mile from the location of the truck to the company's yard in Lansdowne. e contract also contained a provision that if the truck's interior wasn't clean when he returned it, the company could deduct $50 to have it cleaned. It didn't take long for Martin to become un- happy with the working conditions at Don- nelly. In December 2014, he drove his truck to Newfoundland and returned to Moncton. He immediately picked up a load for Prince Edward Island and travelled there. When he returned to Moncton again, he had another load to deliver to Toronto that was urgent. Martin didn't have much time to sleep and when he arrived in Toronto, the load he was supposed to bring back wasn't ready. Martin was frustrated when he had to wait all day for the load he was to deliver back to the Maritimes, and this was the last straw for him. On Dec. 6, he told Donnelly's owner he quit and the owner told him if that Harasser fi red after denials and accusations Worker's misconduct became worthy of dismissal when he denied his behaviour and tried to paint his victims as liars and conspirators BY JEFFREY R. SMITH ANNOYING ONE'S co-workers with inappropriate and sexually-charged com- ments and gestures may not be as serious as sexual coercion, but denying them and ac- cusing those co-workers of lying can make the misconduct worthy of dismissal. Abshir Elmi was a temporary full-time shelter support worker for the City of Ottawa, hired in 2006. Combined with his experience before becoming employed with the city, he had 25 years as a support worker. During this lengthy career, Elmi had no history of serious discipline or harassment complaints against him. Elmi had a satisfactory performance re- view in 2010 with notes that his teamwork and collaboration were highly satisfactory. In November 2012, he received a letter of Employee courts disaster with dishonest conduct pg. 3 Long-time employee denied taking money from safe and then returning it CREDIT: RADFX/SHUTTERSTOCK Attendance management: Good intentions, discriminatory effects pg. 4 Employer's use of approved sick leave and family-related leave to enter employees into program discriminatory: Board ASK AN EXPERT pg. 2 Video surveillance in individual offi ces CHARGE on page 7 » THROWING on page 6 » with Tim Mitchell

• Cover