Employer focused on employee's account of incident rather than the incident itself
A British Columbia drug store worker should not have been dismissed after complaining that a co-worker kicker her in the buttocks, the B.C. Provincial Court has ruled.
Teresa Scholer, 57, worked as a cashier at Hart Drug Mart in Prince George, B.C., starting in March 2009. On Jan. 20, 2010, Scholer was working on a counter display near the cash registers. A co-worker cleared off a display stand and prepared to take the stand away, but dropped it. As the co-worker bent down to pick it up, she said something to Scholer. The co-worker then stood up and kicked Scholer in the buttocks.
Though the kick wasn’t hard, it pushed Scholer from her heels to the balls of her feet. She tried to kick the co-worker back but either missed or, according to Scholer, she held back.
Scholer tried to complain to the store manager at the end of her shift, but the manager was busy so she left. On her next shift two days later, she first tried to talk to the owner and then spoke with the manager, explaining what happened and that she was thinking of pressing charges. Scholer also claimed the co-worker had pushed her forehead in a previous incident.
The manager viewed a security video, which depicted Scholer moving her head back as her co-worker said something before the kick. However, the footage didn’t match with Scholer’s account of the incident, which accused the co-worker of grabbing her arm.
A meeting was scheduled with the manager and company controller and Scholer was told she could view the video. Scholer said she wanted the co-worker to apologize, but the controller said, “if it is not one thing with you it is going to be another.” The employer claimed it had concerns with errors and an argument with another employee, but had not issued any formal warnings. Scholer’s employment was then terminated for exaggeration of the seriousness and inaccurate description of the incident, which Hart Drug Mart considered dishonest.
The court found it strange that the employer focused more on the inaccuracies of Scholer’s account of the incident than the incident itself. She had a right to report the incident and her concerns to the employer, and regardless of any exaggeration, she didn’t consent to being kicked, said the court. Not only did Hart Drug Mart do nothing about Scholer’s complaint, it disciplined her by terminating her employment when it had given her no warning her employment was in jeopardy. In addition, any previous incidents should not have had any bearing because the incident was not one that justified discipline for Scholer.
