Employer came up with different reasons to prevent worker from going on trip
An Ontario continuing care facility wrongfully dismissed a staff member when it fired her for going on a cruise with one of the residents, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled.
Janet Williamson, 46, worked at Ritz Lutheran Villa, a continuing care and retirement home in Mitchell, Ont. She assisted certain residents in their daily activities and helped care for others when needed. In 13 years at the Ritz, she received positive performance evaluations, including multiple commendations for perfect attendance. Her employment record was also void of any discipline.
In the summer of 2008, an 87-year-old resident to whom Williamson was assigned booked a 12-day Mediterranean cruise for that October. A companion had been booked to help provide care for her, but the companion had to back out. The resident asked Williamson to accompany her and Williamson asked for two weeks off to go on the cruise. The Ritz was aware of her plans and approved her vacation on Sept. 18.
However, on Oct. 6, four days before the cruise, the Ritz’s director advised Williamson if she went on the cruise she would be violating the home’s policy against the acceptance of gifts and gratuities and outside employment and she would be fired. Williamson clarified she wasn’t being paid and offered to pay for it herself, but two days later she was told she would be crossing the line of the caregiver-client relationship and it would be a conflict of interest. The Ritz maintained she would be terminated if she went through with the trip.
Williamson felt there wasn’t enough time to find a replacement and went ahead anyway. When she returned, there were two letters of termination waiting for her: one citing the policy prohibiting gifts, gratuities and outside employment and one citing the conflict of interest policy. She received her vacation pay but no severance or notice pay.
The court found the Ritz had a progressive discipline policy, but “totally ignored” it in terminating Williamson’s employment. She was given no warning or other discipline before the decision was made to fire her, said the court, nor did it ensure Williamson was aware of the policies. In fact, the second meeting was the first she had heard of the conflict of interest policy.
The court also found the Ritz was aware of Williamson’s plans well in advance when she booked her vacation, but said nothing until it was too late to change her plans. When she addressed its first concern about gifts or gratuities, it “scrambled” to come up with another reason for her not to go.
