Dismissal for Cause: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Employment Law ==[https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/00e41#BK117 Employment Standards Act, 2000]== '''No termination without notice''' 54 No employer shall ter...") |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
12. The concept of “wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty” is a term of art distinguishable from that of “just cause” in the wrongful dismissal cases or in the arbitral jurisprudence under a collective agreement. A much-cited articulation of its meaning is that found in VME Equipment of Canada Ltd. (Re), [1992] OESAD No 230 (QL) where the Referee wrote: | 12. The concept of “wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty” is a term of art distinguishable from that of “just cause” in the wrongful dismissal cases or in the arbitral jurisprudence under a collective agreement. A much-cited articulation of its meaning is that found in VME Equipment of Canada Ltd. (Re), [1992] OESAD No 230 (QL) where the Referee wrote: | ||
::There are two general categories of serious misconduct. There will be single acts: insubordination, theft and dishonesty, and physical violence against other employees, for instance, which may, standing on their own, meet that standard of seriousness. As well, there will be less serious repetitive forms of misconduct, which if handled properly by the employer, will also meet this standard of seriousness. The employer, in this scenario, must have explained to the employee after each occurrence that the conduct in question was not acceptable and that if continued would result in termination and there must be, subsequent to these warnings, a culminating incident. | ::There are two general categories of <u><b>serious misconduct</b>. There will be single acts: insubordination, theft and dishonesty, and physical violence against other employees</u>, for instance, which may, standing on their own, meet that standard of seriousness. As well, there will be <b>less serious repetitive forms of misconduct</b>, which if handled properly by the employer, will also meet this standard of seriousness. <u>The employer, in this scenario, must have explained to the employee after each occurrence that the conduct in question was not acceptable and that if continued would result in termination and there must be, subsequent to these warnings, a culminating incident.</u> | ||
::In addition to proving that the misconduct is serious, the employer must demonstrate, and this is the aspect of the standard which distinguishes it from 'just cause', that the conduct complained of is 'wilful'. Careless, thoughtless, heedless, or inadvertent conduct, no matter how serious, does not meet the standard. Rather, the employer must show that the misconduct was intentional or deliberate. The employer must show that the employee purposefully engaged in conduct that he or she knew to be serious misconduct. It is, to put it colloquially, being bad on purpose. | ::In addition to proving that the misconduct is serious, <u>the employer must demonstrate, and this is the aspect of the standard which distinguishes it from 'just cause', that the conduct complained of is 'wilful'. Careless, thoughtless, heedless, or inadvertent conduct, no matter how serious, does not meet the standard.</u> Rather, the employer must show that the misconduct was intentional or deliberate. <b><u>The employer must show that the employee purposefully engaged in conduct that he or she knew to be serious misconduct.</b></u> It is, to put it colloquially, being bad on purpose. | ||
Revision as of 22:18, 18 December 2019
Employment Standards Act, 2000
No termination without notice 54 No employer shall terminate the employment of an employee who has been continuously employed for three months or more unless the employer,
- (a) has given to the employee written notice of termination in accordance with section 57 or 58 and the notice has expired; or
- (b) has complied with section 61. 2000, c. 41, s. 54.
James Caldwell v Noble Corporation, 2018 CanLII 44825 (ON LRB)
12. The concept of “wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty” is a term of art distinguishable from that of “just cause” in the wrongful dismissal cases or in the arbitral jurisprudence under a collective agreement. A much-cited articulation of its meaning is that found in VME Equipment of Canada Ltd. (Re), [1992] OESAD No 230 (QL) where the Referee wrote:
- There are two general categories of serious misconduct. There will be single acts: insubordination, theft and dishonesty, and physical violence against other employees, for instance, which may, standing on their own, meet that standard of seriousness. As well, there will be less serious repetitive forms of misconduct, which if handled properly by the employer, will also meet this standard of seriousness. The employer, in this scenario, must have explained to the employee after each occurrence that the conduct in question was not acceptable and that if continued would result in termination and there must be, subsequent to these warnings, a culminating incident.
- In addition to proving that the misconduct is serious, the employer must demonstrate, and this is the aspect of the standard which distinguishes it from 'just cause', that the conduct complained of is 'wilful'. Careless, thoughtless, heedless, or inadvertent conduct, no matter how serious, does not meet the standard. Rather, the employer must show that the misconduct was intentional or deliberate. The employer must show that the employee purposefully engaged in conduct that he or she knew to be serious misconduct. It is, to put it colloquially, being bad on purpose.
