Employee’s departure was an isolated incident unrelated to previous discipline; manager’s impression was coloured by previous arguments
A Saskatchewan company did not have just cause to dismiss a driver who left work and went home in the middle of his shift, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench has ruled.
Warren Ens was a transit and delivery driver in Saskatchewan for GFS Prairies, a wholesale grocery company based in Calgary. Ens had a good employment record during his 10-year career with GFS Prairies, including strong performance reviews and reliability ratings. The only blotches on his record were an incident in April 2009 when he made inappropriate comments to a co-worker and another one, in March 2010, when he complained to his manager that a proposed assignment was too long for him to endure due to back problems. Ens also argued the hours for the assignment would be too long and would be illegal and his manager had assigned him other illegal transit runs in the past.
After his complaints in March 2010 were dismissed, Ens accused his manager of lying and said he would be reporting the company to the Department of Transport. The manager told GFS Prairies it was slander and Ens had a lot of anger. The company gave Ens a written warning, telling him his comments were insubordinate and inappropriate. Ens was warned that further derogatory communication would be considered insubordination and would result in further discipline, up to and including dismissal.
In early July 2010, Ens arrived at work and found the schedule for July 9 had been changed by a co-worker without first asking him. The change gave Ens a longer route than had originally been scheduled and would give him 50 hours of work for the week. Ens complained to his manager, but the schedule wasn’t changed.
Employee saw no need for overtime
On July 9, Ens started the shift making deliveries to customers. Three hours in, he took a break at the warehouse and saw other workers sitting and drinking coffee. With employees seemingly doing nothing, Ens saw no reason for him to work overtime and, as he had already worked more than 46 hours for the week, decided to go home. He couldn’t find his manager, so he left.
A short time later, a supervisor sent Ens a text message saying his actions were “abandonment of your duties constituting resignation.” When asked if that was the case, Ens replied, “No. Worked 46 hours.”
Trust relationship destroyed: Manager
Near the end of the day, GFS Prairies sent Ens a termination later stating he stopped working without notifying his manager. The insubordination damaged the employment relationship and constituted just cause for dismissal, said the letter. Ens’ manager indicated that Ens “completely destroyed the trust relationship between himself and GFS Prairies” and he wasn’t comfortable assigning Ens any delivery routes.
The court found the manager’s assessment of the damage to the company’s trust in Ens and the employment relationship was coloured by the March 2010 incident when the manager felt slandered by Ens. It also noted the employee manual stated that unreported absences would be subject to corrective action. Though Ens left without finishing his deliveries, his misconduct was, to a certain extent, comparable to an unreported absence, said the court.
The court also found Ens’ insubordination in the previous March 2010 incident was prompted by the dismissal of his complaint. Ens was warned against further negative or derogatory communication would result in discipline, but leaving work could not be considered such misconduct. Instead, Ens’ misconduct wasn’t insubordination, but rather failing to complete his assigned deliveries, unrelated to his previous misconduct, said the court.
The court found that Ens’ leaving work in mid-shift was an isolated incident by an employee with a good long-term record and didn’t provide just cause for dismissal. GFS Prairies was ordered to pay Ens’ his salary from the date of his dismissal to when he started a new job four months later — $14,122.
“There is not that much difference between failing to show up for scheduled work and leaving scheduled work without contacting the appropriate personnel,” said the court.” Such an isolated incident does not justify termination.”
For more information see:
