Decides profanity-laced argument did not justify firing 60-year-old worker
On Feb. 12, 2026, arbitrator Eric Cline ruled that a 30-minute profanity-laced argument ending with mutual F-bombs did not justify firing a 60-year-old settlement worker — and then awarded her $152,910 after her employer refused to take her back.
Anita Ogurlu worked as a cultural bridging professional at Saskatoon Open Door Society for six-and-a-half years, averaging 27.7 hours per week at roughly $1,060 weekly in wages and benefits. She held a PhD in Humanities and Cultural Studies and had no prior discipline.
In January 2023, a "fairly minor incident" between Ogurlu and her manager sparked tensions that the arbitrator found "festered and arose" over the next year and a half.
On July 22, 2024, those tensions exploded. Ogurlu and her manager met with a colleague to plan a presentation. Within minutes, according to the colleague's testimony, the manager "appeared to become upset about something and made a provocative comment directed at the grievor, who responded in kind."
A heated argument followed that "went on and escalated for 30 minutes," after which Ogurlu closed her notebook in the manager's face, said "F___ you," and left. The manager responded "F___ your face."
The employer terminated Ogurlu on Aug. 14, 2024. The union grieved.
‘Personal animosity between two people’
In his Nov. 29, 2025 award on liability, Cline found the conduct sanctionable but termination excessive. He noted this was not a refusal to follow directives but rather that "tensions and discord festered" between two individuals over an extended period.
The colleague called by the employer was described as "the most objective witness" and his account matched Ogurlu's.
Cline wrote: "In that sense, they were not communicating with one another as worker and manager dealing with actual work as much as they were communicating person to person about extraneous matters, because their relationship had gone awry."
He added: "One of these parties, if not both of them, should have avoided the situation by being 'the adult in the room.' This could have been the grievor. It could also have been her supervisor and manager."
The arbitrator found the outburst was "not premeditated or the repeat of earlier behaviour of the same nature. It was, in fact, a momentary and emotional aberration after a relatively lengthy period of stressful discord between two individuals."
Remedy hearing weighs factors
At the Jan. 28, 2026 remedy hearing, the parties agreed to present evidence through counsel submissions rather than witness testimony. The employer sought an 18-month suspension covering Ogurlu's entire time off work. The union argued for "one or a few days."
Cline applied the test from the leading case Wm. Scott & Company, asking how serious the offense was, whether it was premeditated, the employee's service record, and prior progressive discipline. He noted Ogurlu had been cooperative in the investigation and was "remorseful and introspective at the Hearing," acknowledging responsibility though not apologizing.
He also observed she was 60 at termination, now 61, "and supports herself with less than full-time employment. Therefore, any penalty she receives which has financial implications may be more severe to her than another person, especially one not having to deal with ageism."
Weighing the seriousness of profanity directed at management against the shared responsibility, provocation, lack of premeditation, clean record and circumstances, Cline ordered a four-week suspension.
He awarded $71,800 in back pay: $1,060 per week for 77 weeks between termination and the award, minus $5,800 representing half of additional earnings she secured from a new teaching position and increased sessional lecturer work, minus $4,300 representing the suspension.
‘Poisoned atmosphere’ triggers rare remedy
The case took an unusual turn when the employer argued that reinstatement would not be appropriate, claiming a "poisoned atmosphere" and "clear lack of trust." The employer requested a last-chance agreement if Ogurlu returned.
Facing this opposition and fearing a hostile environment would harm her mental health, Ogurlu told the arbitrator she felt she would be "walking on eggshells" and agreed that reinstatement should not occur.
That triggered a separate head of damages: compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Cline emphasized this is not wrongful dismissal compensation but payment "for the loss of seniority rights and enhanced security of employment" under a collective agreement — rights that non-union workers lack.
Following the approach in De Havilland Inc. v CAW Local 112 and City of Regina v Regina Civic Middle Management Association, Cline applied a formula of two months' pay per year of service, plus a 25 percent top-up for lost collectively bargained benefits.
He wrote that losing union job security at 61 is "not insignificant" for someone whose "education and employment experience is in a more specialized and narrower field without a huge number of job opportunities."
The award: $59,800 for 6.5 years of service plus $14,950 for lost benefits, totaling $74,750. He added $6,360 in statutory notice pay under Saskatchewan's Employment Act. Combined with the wrongful termination award, the total exceeded $152,910, plus pre-judgment interest on the back pay portion.
Mitigation argued but not proven
The employer argued Ogurlu failed to mitigate by not applying for enough jobs. She had made only a small number of verbal inquiries to settlement agencies. The union countered that there were "only a few settlement agencies offering cultural bridging related work," the people in the sector know each other, and "any jobs available are known to people working in the sector."
Ogurlu earned additional income as a sessional lecturer at the University of Saskatchewan but those were not full-time positions.
Cline noted the employer bears the onus of proving both inadequate mitigation efforts and that suitable work was available the grievor likely would have obtained. The job postings the employer produced were not comparable – one was an on-call interpreter position for Turkish speakers; others were counselling roles not matching Ogurlu's qualifications. The arbitrator wrote: "It was not established that there was suitable work available to the grievor that she did not seek and that she would likely have obtained."
The arbitrator ordered payment structured to minimize tax consequences at Ogurlu's direction and retained jurisdiction over implementation.
