Employer didn't follow own policy of reviewing employee's circumstances
An Ontario company could not fire an employee for cause because it didn’t follow its stated progressive discipline policy, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled.
Milutin Jazarevic, 48, was a machine operator for Schaeffler Canada, a supplier of bearings to the automotive industry in Oakville, Ont. He was hired in 1996.
Schaeffler had an employee handbook that set out rules and guidelines employees were expected to follow and also outlined the company’s progressive discipline policy. This policy involved a four-step process that involved two written warnings followed by a minimum two-day suspension and dismissal for a fourth instance of misconduct within a 12-month period. Jazarevic had received only one discipline notice prior to 2002.
Jazarevic’s wife died in 2002, leaving him to care for their four children. He was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and went on short-term disability leave a few times over the next couple of years. He also had chronic asthma.
In October 2002, Jazarevic received a first discipline notice for failing to follow his control plan, which each machine operator must follow closely to ensure the manufactured product matches specifications. In this case, Jazarevic’s failure to follow is resulted in defective pieces.
In late 2003, Jazarevic received a discipline notice and coaching sessions for absenteeism. He continued to rack up absences and received another discipline notice on Aug. 5, 2004.
Jazarevic was further disciplined on Sept. 30, 2004, for failing to follow his control plan. As this was his third notice in the past year, he was suspended for three days and told another warning would lead to his dismissal.
On June 6, 2005, Jazarevic was late for work and was given a discipline notice. As it was still his third warning in the past 12 months, he was suspended again for two days and warned another would lead to dismissal.
On July 28, 2005, Jazarevic had another problem with following his control plan and produced defective parts. He met with management and told them he was having issues outside work which made it difficult to concentrate and contributed to a drinking problem. The company nurse gave him a short-term disability form and sent him to his doctor. The disability claim was accepted, but on Aug. 3 the company issued him a another discipline notice, his fourth in 12 months, and terminated his employment.
The court found Jazarevic was aware of Schaeffler’s discipline policy but it wasn’t necessarily a term of his employment to which he agreed. It also found the policy stated all suspensions and dismissals were subject to review. This was important, said the court, because it prevented a “mechanical application of the four step dismissal process” and allowed the consideration of mitigating factors.
However, the court found Schaeffler didn’t undertake any review of Jazarevic’s circumstances, even though it was aware of his wife’s death and his mental health issues, especially after Jazarevic informed management and applied for disability benefits.
“In the circumstances, assistance through treatment would have been the appropriate course of action,” said the court. “Enforcement of the progressive discipline policy by confirming the dismissal without further consideration was not.”
