In Rooney v GSL Chevrolet Cadillac ( 2022 ABKB 813 ) Justice Feasby had situation where an employee who believed that he was being subject to unfair disciplinary suspensions decided to secretly record conversations with his supervisor.
The Court noted that generally speaking:
” Recording conversations in the workplace will often cause irreparable damage to the relationship of trust between employee and employer and be just cause for termination.”
However in this case, the actions of the employee did not constitute just cause for two reasons:
1) The employer did not have an express policy prohibiting such conduct that was brought to the attention of the employee, and
2) ” [91] Perhaps a more significant difference from Shalagin is that by the time of the first recording by Mr. Rooney, the employer-employee relationship was already frayed by tensions between Mr. Rooney and his supervisors, Mr. Rooney had an emerging appreciation that there. had been a fundamental change in his terms of employment, and a suspension without pay had been imposed on Mr. Rooney without any basis in the terms of employment. Mr. Rooney resorted to what, in ordinary times, is rightly viewed as an unethical tactic to deal with what the arbitrator described in British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union as a “relationship power imbalance.” Mr. Rooney’s actions in recording conversations with his supervisors were justified because GSL exerted its power over Mr. Rooney by imposing unilateral changes on his employment terms and disciplined him contrary to his terms of employment.
My Comments :
This case seems to say that if the Court finds that you did not have a valid reason to secretly record your employer or co-worker, then you can be fired for just cause but if you had a good reason then it is not just cause.
This creates a real problem for the Plaintiff’s lawyer. Your client tells you they have a secret recording of a conversation with the boss which is relevant to the lawsuit. You listen to it and determine that although it is relevant, it probably not that helpful to your case. However, you must include this document in your clients’ Affidavit of Documents as it is relevant, but to do so you run the real risk that the employer will now allege after acquired just cause.
Possible solution: Settle the case before you have to file your Affidavit of Documents.
If you like a copy of this case, email me at barry@barryfisher.ca
If you like to book a mediation, go to my calendar at www.barryfisher.ca
He did not deny this use and acknowledged that he was wrong.
The major issue was whether or not this incident was sufficient cause so that discharge was an appropriate remedy. This is what the Judge said :
[87] However, I find that the City had other sanctions available that could have achieved its legitimate objectives. The City could have suspended Mr. Stevens without pay. It could have required him to attend remedial training. The City also could have convened an employee meeting and used this incident to emphasize the importance of the policy on the use of municipal equipment, even in less serious cases than the copper thefts. It could have required Mr. Stevens to lead the meeting.
[88] The 2020 Incident reflected poorly on Mr. Stevens’ management skills. However, I am not persuaded the employment relationship was damaged beyond repair. Mr. Stevens was relatively new to management. He needed coaching in the leadership aspects of his position. There is no evidence that he was uncoachable in this regard. Even with a second breach of policy, I am not persuaded his behaviour could not be corrected with a clear warning and
appropriate discipline.
[89] In short, I find that summary dismissal was not a proportionate response to the misconduct. A reasonable employer informed of the relevant circumstances would not conclude that the employment relationship was damaged beyond repair.
My Comment:
In my mediations I sometimes find that Plaintiff’s counsel try to defend the indefensible when it comes to their clients’ obvious misconduct. They try to deny clear facts or shift blame to others. This feeds into the employers’ view ( and the Courts’ view) that the employee is beyond rehabilitation if he will not even admit his actions were wrong.
This case shows that it is smarter to simply argue that the punishment does not fit the crime. Taking a company pencil home is not the same as stealing a company truck. There is little reason that an employer cannot issue a short disciplinary suspension for misconduct. Denying or reducing a discretionary bonus may also be a a lesser penalty for misconduct.
Judges and arbitrators seem to love expressions of true remorse made before the dismissal .
If you would like a copy of this case, email me at barry@barryfisher.ca
For my mediation date availability go to www.barryfisher.ca