The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Employment RegulationLaw of Work ArchiveOLRB

When is cursing at your Employer Wilful Misconduct?

by David Doorey September 16, 2009
written by David Doorey September 16, 2009

Written by David Doorey, York University

Under both the common law and Employment Standards legislation, employees are generally entitled to notice of termination.  However, in both regimes, the employee may forfeit that entitlement by engaging in serious misconduct.  Under the common law, the leading case is McKinley v. BC Tel, where the SCC ruled that  the misconduct must be serious enough to irreparably destroy the relationship of trust and confidence required in an employment relationship in order for an employee to forfeit the right to common law notice.

In the Ontario ESA, section 54  provides employees who have been continuously employed for three months or more with a right to notice of termination or termination pay under the Act.  Section 55 then provides that ‘prescribed’ employees are not entitled to notice of termination or termination pay.   Whenever we see ‘prescribed’, we know to look at the Regulations.   Regulation 288/01 sets out the employees who are prescribed as not entitled to receive termination pay.  Paragraph 3 of subsection 2(1) prescribes from entitlement to termination pay:

 an employee who has been guilty of wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer.

Two recent decisions by the OLRB show how applying this test can be difficult and unpredictable.  The cases involve similar forms of insubordination in the form of single outbursts directed at supervisors, and then a refusal to apology or admit wrongdoing.  However, only in one of the cases is the employee found to have been disqualified from notice pay.

In the first case, Welsh Industrial Manufacturing, the employee cursed at his supervisor and (perhaps) called him a “f-ing idiot”, and then refused to apologize the next day, and indeed was argumentative again.  However, the Board ruled that this was not sufficiently serious to constitute ‘willful misconduct’.   It applied this test:

Most, if not all of the decisions adopt a three-part test articulated by Referee Hunter back in 1982 in General Motors of Canada Ltd. (December 14, 1982 – E.S.C. 1337):
         i.   The profanity must be more than “shop talk”;
        ii.   The employer’s prohibition on profanity must be known; and
        iii.   Profanity justifying termination must be more than one isolated outburst.

Applying this test, the Board ruled that the outburst was isolated, even though it continued over two work days.  The employee had a long service record with no problems, so viewed in context, the unusual outburst was not serious enough to amount to ‘willful misconduct’.  The employee was entitled to notice pay.

The second case, Marquis v. Arrow Games has similar facts.  The employee there was asked to do something by a manager and he refused to do it because he thought is was a stupid idea.  He told the manager that he was “f-ing idiot” and that he would ‘kick the shit out of him’.  The next day the employer gave the employee a letter to sign that would have acknowledged the employee’s insubordination, but the employee was belligerent again and refused to acknowledge he’d done anything wrong.   So the employer terminated him.

The Board ruled that the employee had engaged in wilful misconduct, thereby forfeiting his entitlement to notice of termination pay. The Board was not concerned about the language used, ruling it was the type of ‘shop talk’ that was normal at the workplace.  But the Board was more concerned about the employee’s refusal to acknowledge his insubordination.   The adjudicator wrote that a test to apply is ‘whether it would have been unreasonable to expect the employer to permit the employee to work out his or her notice period under the Act.”  Given the employee’s unwillingness to accept that he is required to obey management orders, and his persistent belligerence, the Board said that the employer would not have been expected to allow the employee to work out the notice period.

Can you explain the different outcomes?

Note, by the way, that there is no issue here about whether the employee can dismiss the workers for insubordination.  They can.  The only question is whether the employer needs to give the employee notice of that termination in the form of working notice or pay in lieu of notice.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Can the NBA Use Replacement Refs in Toronto?
next post
Both Parents of Twins Entitled to EI Benefits

You may also like

Models of Broader-Based Sectoral Collective Bargaining

February 3, 2023

New Video: Standing Up to the Notwithstanding Clause

November 25, 2022

R.O. MacDowell: Who Defines Appropriate Bargaining Units After...

October 10, 2022

Why Gig Workers Are NOT Independent Contractors: A...

September 19, 2022

CUPW’s Unfair Labour Practice Complaint Against Uber Raises...

September 16, 2022

Beware Ontario School Support Workers … We’ve Seen...

August 11, 2022

A Canadian Proposal for Starbucks Bargaining

August 2, 2022

Why It’s So Hard to Unionize Starbucks in...

June 15, 2022

Will There Be a Strike at York?

March 11, 2022

Reforming Non-Compete Law: A Cross Border Perspective

March 3, 2022

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
5h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 140 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 412 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
10h

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 84 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 242 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Oh fun.

‘AI is on the cusp of taking control: This is how it may all go wrong’

https://apple.news/AWvPXyT8WTVOs5byQvVk-3Q

Reply on Twitter 1640408084093779989 Retweet on Twitter 1640408084093779989 1 Like on Twitter 1640408084093779989 3 Twitter 1640408084093779989
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.