29-year employee stormed out after accusations based on hearsay
A Quebec employer should not have taken an employee’s emotional response to unfounded accusations of kickbacks as a resignation, the Canada Arbitration Board has ruled.
Mario Perrella was fleet manager for G.T. Group, a shipping company in Montreal, with 29 years of service.
G.T. discovered that twice in 2008, Perrella had filled the fuel tank of his personal vehicle at the company’s fuel depot and didn’t pay. The total value of the fuel was about $200.
In February 2009, a parts supplier told G.T. Group it couldn’t compete against another company for G.T.’s business and it refused to pay a commission to Perrella. The supplier alleged the other company had paid $15,000 to $20,000 in kickbacks to Perrella, who was in charge of tire purchases. G.T. discovered Perrella had asked for free tires worth $1,000 from the supplier.
G.T. also learned Perrella had sold a transmission to another company for $900 cash without reporting it or giving the money to G.T. In addition, he had loaded an $300 folding construction ladder into his vehicle and took it home while telling management the ladder had been destroyed by a loader.
G.T. brought these incidents to Perrella’s attention and Perrella responded angrily that he was insulted and was resigning from his position. He denied asking for free tires and said he had just asked for a special price and didn’t actually receive the tires. He also said he had only used the company fuel depot when he was using his vehicle for company business and he’d been told an “occasional fill-up” was fine.
G.T. accepted Perrella’s resignation. Two days later, Perrella asked for his record of employment and was told it would be ready for the next pay period.
However, on the Monday of the following week, Perrella showed up at work as if nothing had happened. The general manager reminded him his resignation had been accepted and asked him to leave.
The board found the main allegation of kickbacks from the tire supplier were unsubstantiated and based on hearsay, while G.T. had not found any evidence of the amounts mentioned. The fact the fuel issue wasn’t brought up until months later despite not being hidden made it likely the company condoned it, said the board. In addition, nobody asked Perrella to remit the $900 from the transmission sale, though Perrella voluntarily sent a cheque after his dismissal.
The board found the only legitimate misconduct was the taking of the ladder and therefore he had reason to be angry when confronted with the accusations. His reaction was an emotional one and G.T. should not have assumed he was resigning without more, said the board.
“Mr. Perrella’s resignation should have been recognized for what is was, namely: a prideful, stubborn reaction of momentary anger and frustration at having his honesty questioned after 29 years of service and a more extensive effort should have been made to assuage this reaction and to continue the dialogue,” said the board.
