You make the call
This instalment of You Make the Call features a worker who claimed he was fired after raising concerns about shoplifters.
The worker, referred to as N.C., began working for sporting goods retailer Sport Chek in June 2011 at one of the company’s stores in Winnipeg. He soon joined Sport Chek’s workplace safety and health committee and, after a few years, he was appointed to the general manager position at the store.
By the summer of 2016, N.C. became concerned about shoplifting in the store and an increase in violent incidents related to such theft. He went to the district manager, who told him to bring the issue up with a Sport Chek loss prevention representative who would be visiting Winnipeg soon.
According to Sport Chek, around this time upper management had come to the conclusion that N.C. wasn’t a good fit for and began communicating with the human resources department about the possibility of terminating N.C.’s employment. There were no other specific reasons for the termination and they acknowledged that it was expected to be without cause, requiring a severance package. However, due to issues with the company's budget, they held off on going through with the termination.
N.C. continued to express his concerns about the loss of inventory through shoplifting, as he felt the company was pressuring him to reduce this loss. However, company policy dictated that employee safety was a priority and employees were supposed to avoid confrontation with shoplifters if there was a possibility of escalation. N.C. felt torn between trying to protect his merchandize and ensuring a safe workplace.
Over a period of a few weeks in November and December 2016, N.C. contacted Sport Chek executives to tell them he had created a company of his own geared towards addressing shoplifting. He requested an appointment with the company’s vice-president in Calgary to pitch his proposed company and to get any information on shoplifting that he would need to operate. When his request was deferred, he offered to make a smaller pitch for just Manitoba. He followed up by contacting the loss prevention manager outlining the concept of his new company, but received no response.
On Jan. 12, 2017, N.C. emailed his district manager and the Sport Chek vice-president to say he had been involved in a violent incident at the store and was taking a day off. He reminded them of his proposed company and said “I want to help the company but you have to stop ignoring me and pretend this issue does not exist. If you don’t support me the way Winnipeg Transit supported their driver — I will have to go outside the company in order to change the current corporate culture where it’s acceptable for (store managers) to be assaulted at work.”
An HR representative invited N.C. to share information on the incident, but found him resistant. N.C. asked for confirmation that he wouldn’t lose his job for raising safety concerns and requested a meeting with loss prevention to discuss changes.
Eventually, N.C. shared details on the incident and Sport Chek investigated. Video footage from the store showed N.C. had interfered with the shoplifters and unnecessarily escalated the situation. This contravention of company policy pushed management to move ahead with termination, regardless of the investigation's outcome.
On Jan. 25, Sport Chek terminated N.C.’s employment without cause. Less than two weeks later, an investigator from Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health found Sport Chek’s violence prevention policies were compliant with provincial health and safety legislation, but N.C. filed a complaint alleging he was dismissed for raising safety concerns, which was discrimination under The Workplace Safety and Health Act.
You Make the Call
Was the dismissal discriminatory?
OR
Was the dismissal legitimate?
If you said the dismissal was legitimate, you’re right. The board found that Sport Chek provided sufficient evidence —through emails between upper management and human resources — that the company planned to dismiss N.C. several months before it actually happened and before N.C. began his campaign to do something about shoplifters. The termination was placed on hold for budgetary reasons and then the investigation into the incident at the store, but the decision to terminate wasn’t affected by them, said the board.
The board also found that N.C.’s correspondence with Sport Chek management regarding his health and safety concerns were “at least partly predicated on the promotion of a new business venture” that he wanted to pitch to executives. In addition, a provincial investigator determined that Sport Chek’s violence prevention policies were compliant with health and safety legislation.
The board determined that Sport Chek’s decision to terminate N.C.’s employment wasn't motivated either in whole or in part by N.C.’s raising of safety concerns related to shoplifting at his store.
For more information see:
• N.C. and Chek, Re, 2017 CarswellMan 615 (Man. Lab. Bd.).
