Common sense, a little heart avoid a lot of problems

Company hit with extra damages could have saved itself some trouble with more consideration for cancer-stricken employee

By Jeffrey R. Smith

Companies have a laser-like focus on what’s best for the bottom line.

Whether it’s staying on budget, marketing to customers or ensuring good productivity levels from its workforce, paying attention to the bottom line is essential. However, no matter how important it is, a company should set its priorities within reason — particularly when dealing with employees — or it might end up costing serious amounts of money and reputation.

Steve’s Music Store is a family-owned business with a small chain of stores selling musical instruments in Ontario and Quebec. One Toronto location had a manager, Shelley Altman, who worked for the company for 30 years starting in 1978. During her three decades with the company, Altman developed personal relationships with the family and put in a lot of extra hours and served the company loyally.

However, she developed lung cancer in 2007 and had to take some time off. During her chemotherapy, she still wanted to work reduced hours out of a sense of duty and to attempt to keep a sense of normalcy in her life. Steve’s stood by Altman and agreed to pay her full salary while she took time off when she needed it during her treatment.

Then, in October 2008, out of the blue, Steve’s lawyers sent Altman a letter warning her to improve her attendance or she’d be fired. This was the first she’d heard of any problem and the shock distressed her to the point where she had to go on medical leave. Months later, in April 2009, when Altman said she would be able to return to work soon, she received a termination letter for failing to work the required hours. She was also denied termination pay because Steve’s said she owed it to the company for the reduced hours she worked for several months.

It’s not clear what Steve’s was thinking when these letters were sent to Altman. Things started out fine when it stood by her as she started her cancer treatment. But the company’s change of heart was stunning in its suddenness. What did the company do wrong? Well, pretty much everything.

Even without considering the heartlessness of its treatment of a long-term employee, the company had to know there had been no indication it had any problems with Altman’s attendance before the warning letter. In fact, it had initially supported the plan. Apparently, the company changed its mind but didn’t tell Altman.

The conduct that followed is a little baffling and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice slapped Steve’s with $35,000 in bad-faith damages and another $20,000 in punitive damages for its extremely ill-advised course of action. While the company may have felt it could no longer pay Altman without a certain level of productivity, it seemed to abandon any course of action that could be considered reasonable and most observers probably aren’t surprised by the outcome.

Employees are fairly well-protected in Canada’s employment law regime. But it’s not always an incomprehensible web of confusion for employers to figure out the right course of action when dealing with a productivity issue that could result in an employee’s dismissal. Often, a good measure of common sense and reasonable conduct will suffice.

Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at [email protected]. For more information, visit www.employmentlawtoday.com.

 

Latest stories