Noun v. Sterling Trucks, 2002 CarswellOnt 4548 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)
Marady Noun sued Sterling for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract and infliction of emotional distress after he was terminated on Nov. 18, 1999.
Noun contended he was dismissed without just cause and without notice from his job as a custodian and that his dismissal caused him mental distress. Sterling Trucks argued that Noun's dismissal was the result of an undercover investigation they carried out on the evening of Nov. 12, 1999. Noun had volunteered for the night shift for that evening. Sterling started their investigation of Noun after other employees had raised suspicions about Noun's work performance. Noun's supervisor, Bev Wallace, watched Noun during his entire shift that evening.
Wallace testified that on the evening of Nov. 12 Noun showed up for work to punch in, then left during his shift and then came back later to punch out, so as to deceive Sterling management that he had been present for his entire shift. In addition to Wallace's report, Sterling's security guards testified they did not see Noun's car when they toured the worksite on the evening of Nov. 12.
Sterling's management met with Noun twice on Nov. 16. They asked him why he was absent from his scheduled shift on Nov. 12. Noun's explanation was that Wallace could not have seen him from his vantage point and that when the security guards were touring the worksite he had left to take his breaks at a local coffee shop.
Sterling’s management was unsatisfied with Noun’s answers. Noun met again with Sterling's management on Nov. 17 where management claimed that Noun agreed to the contents of Wallace’s report. At trial Noun strongly disagreed, claiming he never agreed to Wallace's report. On Nov. 18 Noun was formally dismissed by letter because of his flagrant behaviour in leaving work while receiving overtime pay and also due to his continued dishonesty throughout their investigation. On Nov. 19 a peer panel of employees and company officials agreed with management’s decision to dismiss him.
The judge did not find Noun's testimony credible and generally believed the story presented by Sterling. Alternatively Noun argued that even if one believed Wallace's version of events, that his conduct warranted a warning and not dismissal.
The judge stated that in the circumstances, considering the long period of deceit, that it would be difficult to imagine, “any effective discipline that could be administered short of dismissal.” In this case the breach of trust in being paid for work that he was not doing, and the persistent lies to Sterling management, constituted just cause. The judge thought that it would be impossible for Noun to rebuild the requisite confidence that any employer would need to have in their employees. Noun's action was dismissed.
Marady Noun sued Sterling for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract and infliction of emotional distress after he was terminated on Nov. 18, 1999.
Noun contended he was dismissed without just cause and without notice from his job as a custodian and that his dismissal caused him mental distress. Sterling Trucks argued that Noun's dismissal was the result of an undercover investigation they carried out on the evening of Nov. 12, 1999. Noun had volunteered for the night shift for that evening. Sterling started their investigation of Noun after other employees had raised suspicions about Noun's work performance. Noun's supervisor, Bev Wallace, watched Noun during his entire shift that evening.
Wallace testified that on the evening of Nov. 12 Noun showed up for work to punch in, then left during his shift and then came back later to punch out, so as to deceive Sterling management that he had been present for his entire shift. In addition to Wallace's report, Sterling's security guards testified they did not see Noun's car when they toured the worksite on the evening of Nov. 12.
Sterling's management met with Noun twice on Nov. 16. They asked him why he was absent from his scheduled shift on Nov. 12. Noun's explanation was that Wallace could not have seen him from his vantage point and that when the security guards were touring the worksite he had left to take his breaks at a local coffee shop.
Sterling’s management was unsatisfied with Noun’s answers. Noun met again with Sterling's management on Nov. 17 where management claimed that Noun agreed to the contents of Wallace’s report. At trial Noun strongly disagreed, claiming he never agreed to Wallace's report. On Nov. 18 Noun was formally dismissed by letter because of his flagrant behaviour in leaving work while receiving overtime pay and also due to his continued dishonesty throughout their investigation. On Nov. 19 a peer panel of employees and company officials agreed with management’s decision to dismiss him.
The judge did not find Noun's testimony credible and generally believed the story presented by Sterling. Alternatively Noun argued that even if one believed Wallace's version of events, that his conduct warranted a warning and not dismissal.
The judge stated that in the circumstances, considering the long period of deceit, that it would be difficult to imagine, “any effective discipline that could be administered short of dismissal.” In this case the breach of trust in being paid for work that he was not doing, and the persistent lies to Sterling management, constituted just cause. The judge thought that it would be impossible for Noun to rebuild the requisite confidence that any employer would need to have in their employees. Noun's action was dismissed.
