Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
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 the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I 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

Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure...

February 24, 2021

Real Pleadings: Has Uber Created a New Service...

February 15, 2021

Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc.: Migrant Workers...

February 3, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

“Autonomous Worker” Regulation

December 1, 2020

Reflecting on the Use of Neutrality Agreements in...

November 27, 2020

Video: Prof. David Doorey and Lawyer Ryan White...

November 26, 2020

What Could Biden’s Labor Secretary Do?

November 12, 2020

Alberta Government Continues Rollback of Worker Protections

November 10, 2020

Dispatches from Canada on the Big California Uber...

October 23, 2020

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
2h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
2h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923168Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
3h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • 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.