Scenario K Flashcards
Salima is an HR generalist with Alliance Inc., a plastics manufacturing company in Barrie, Ontario. Because it is a small company with a relatively close workforce, Salima is the only HR person on staff and she handles all employee performance and discipline issues. On Friday, Levi, one of the managers, approaches Salima about concerns with 2 of his employees, Lilian and Shane. Levi believes they have been acting out of line, talking back, and even refusing to complete small tasks at times. Salima wants to remedy this situation quickly and without resorting to termination if possible. The company does not have a policy on how to handle this type of situation, however, and Salima is not sure how to proceed. The following Monday morning, before Salima has decided how to proceed, she is informed that both Levi and Shane have been rushed to the hospital, one with a bloody nose and the other with possible broken ribs. Salima learns that while they were starting work that morning, Shane found out Levi had been “bad-mouthing” him and an altercation between the two ensued. How should Salima proceed with the concerns about Lilian’s conduct? a) Begin progressive discipline with a verbal warning. b) Begin progressive discipline with a written warning. c) Begin progressive discipline with a suspension.
The answer is a. Begin progressive discipline with a verbal warning. Functional Area: B2 Rationale(s): A is correct. Considering there is no policy in place, a verbal warning is generally considered the appropriate way to begin the process of progressive discipline. B is incorrect. A written warning is generally the second stage of progressive discipline, following a verbal warning. C is incorrect. Suspension without prior warnings would not be the appropriate way to start the process of progressive discipline except in especially dire situations or cases of misconduct. Reference(s) Unit 11: Termination, Module 7: Progressive Discipline. WeirFoulds LLP: “Employment law in Canada” (http://www.weirfoulds.com/files/9117_WeirFoulds%20-%20Employment%20Law%20In%20Canada%20(2011).pdf).
Salima is an HR generalist with Alliance Inc., a plastics manufacturing company in Barrie, Ontario. Because it is a small company with a relatively close workforce, Salima is the only HR person on staff and she handles all employee performance and discipline issues. On Friday, Levi, one of the managers, approaches Salima about concerns with 2 of his employees, Lilian and Shane. Levi believes they have been acting out of line, talking back, and even refusing to complete small tasks at times. Salima wants to remedy this situation quickly and without resorting to termination if possible. The company does not have a policy on how to handle this type of situation, however, and Salima is not sure how to proceed. The following Monday morning, before Salima has decided how to proceed, she is informed that both Levi and Shane have been rushed to the hospital, one with a bloody nose and the other with possible broken ribs. Salima learns that while they were starting work that morning, Shane found out Levi had been “bad-mouthing” him and an altercation between the two ensued. What is the first step Salima should take after learning of the incident between Levi and Shane? a) Notify a Ministry of Labour inspector and the company’s health and safety representative about the incident. b) File a worker’s compensation claim if it appears either of the employees will miss work because of the incident. c) Have the other employees clean up the site where the incident took place, conduct a re-enactment, and collect information for any possible police investigation.
The answer is a. Notify a Ministry of Labour inspector and the company’s health and safety representative about the incident. Functional Area: C2 Rationale(s): A is correct. According to the OHSA, s. 52, written notice of violence causing injury must be given to the joint health and safety committee or the health and safety representative within 4 days, but in this case the inspector should be notified immediately because the possible broken ribs may constitute a critical injury. (s. 8(14) and s. 9(31)). B is incorrect. A worker’s compensation claim should be filed, but Salima has 3 days to do so. C is incorrect. If the incident is serious enough to be investigated by the police and the Ministry of Labour, Salima should avoid cleaning up or disturbing the scene before she has received approval from the proper authorities – in this case, the Ministry of Labour and potentially the police. Reference(s) Unit 11: Termination, Module 6: Common Reasons for Termination. Ontario Ministry of Labour: “2. Workplace Violence”, Workplace Violence and Harassment (https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/wpvh/violence.php).
Salima is an HR generalist with Alliance Inc., a plastics manufacturing company in Barrie, Ontario. Because it is a small company with a relatively close workforce, Salima is the only HR person on staff and she handles all employee performance and discipline issues. On Friday, Levi, one of the managers, approaches Salima about concerns with 2 of his employees, Lilian and Shane. Levi believes they have been acting out of line, talking back, and even refusing to complete small tasks at times. Salima wants to remedy this situation quickly and without resorting to termination if possible. The company does not have a policy on how to handle this type of situation, however, and Salima is not sure how to proceed. The following Monday morning, before Salima has decided how to proceed, she is informed that both Levi and Shane have been rushed to the hospital, one with a bloody nose and the other with possible broken ribs. Salima learns that while they were starting work that morning, Shane found out Levi had been “bad-mouthing” him and an altercation between the two ensued. Salima considers recommending Shane be terminated with cause. However, she is not sure whether this single act of misconduct would be enough to establish just cause, and she is concerned that Shane could successfully challenge the termination in court. Is her concern justified, and on what grounds? a) No, because any incident of workplace violence is grounds for immediate dismissal of the employees involved. b) Yes, because a single incident of misconduct usually does not provide sufficient grounds, although it can if it involves violence or sexual harassment. c) Yes, because it is almost impossible to justify the termination of an employee over a single act of misconduct.
The answer is b. Yes, because a single incident of misconduct usually does not provide sufficient grounds, although it can if it involves violence or sexual harassment. Functional Area: B2 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. Workplace violence and harassment provisions are included in Part III.01 of the OHSA. However, dismissal for cause over a single incident would likely be rejected by the court based on the contextual approach set out in McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, unless the act is particularly egregious; involves violence or sexual assault; or may pose future risk to other employees. Even violence does not always constitute just cause unless the violence is “so grievous that it intimates the employee’s abandonment of the intention to remain part of the employment relationship.” Salima should proceed with caution and not take for granted that this will be an easily justifiable termination. B is correct. While the contextual approach set out in McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, indicates dismissal over a single act of misconduct would likely not be considered a proportionate response in most cases, serious incidents of violence or sexual misconduct are increasingly being used to justify termination with cause. This answer accurately reflects both the relevant case law and the concerns that an informed HR professional should have before deciding to terminate an employee with cause for violence in the workplace. C is incorrect. Workplace violence and harassment provisions are included in Part III.01 of the OHSA. Depending on the seriousness of the act, both violence and sexual harassment or misconduct may warrant termination over a single incident. Reference(s) Unit 11: Termination, Module 6: Common Reasons for Termination. Filsinger, 2015, pp. 153, 381. McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38. Phanlouvong v. Northfield Metal Products (1994) Ltd. et al, 2014 ONSC 6585.
