Scenario S Flashcards
Ronald and Geraldine work for Beds for Badlands, a not-for-profit organization with offices in southern Ontario, the Alberta Badlands, and the Dakota Badlands. Both Ronald and Geraldine have worked at the Ontario location for the past 7 years. Throughout their tenure, they have been model employees, each regularly receiving glowing performance reviews. Recently, the Ontario office was assigned a new manager, Annika, who transferred from the Dakota branch. Annika approaches Stuart, the local HR manager, for help with a situation that has come to her attention. Annika informs Stuart that she has learned that Geraldine has a serious drinking problem and has repeatedly come to work intoxicated. It seems that staff have reported concerns over the years, but the problem was largely ignored by the previous manager. In addition, last week Geraldine was caught stealing a portable printer from the office. Although the item has only limited value, other pieces of office equipment have been going missing for quite some time. Annika learned that, over the past year, items have gone missing worth more than $5,000. When Annika met with Geraldine about the theft and her drinking, Geraldine claimed she only took the printer. She insisted it was an isolated act brought on by her struggle with alcohol abuse, which she acknowledged was a problem and said she wanted to get help with. Despite Geraldine’s response, Annika suspects Geraldine took most of the missing items, and she wants to make an example of Geraldine by terminating her with cause. Annika asks Stuart if terminating Geraldine can be supported. What should Stuart advise? a) Geraldine’s history of theft and coming to work intoxicated are adequate grounds to terminate her with cause. b) Annika and Stuart should have a disciplinary meeting with Geraldine to discuss their concerns before taking any other action. c) Annika can terminate Geraldine but only without cause since they don’t know for certain how many items she stole.
The answer is b. Annika and Stuart should have a disciplinary meeting with Geraldine to discuss their concerns before taking any other action. Functional Area: A1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. Considering Geraldine is dependent on alcohol, she may be considered to be suffering from a disability, and terminating her with cause without any prior accommodations may lead to a human rights lawsuit. While they may have just cause for the theft case, theft is no longer an automatic guarantee of just cause. The employee admitted the theft and stated that it was the result of substance abuse, and the item was of little value (these facts weigh against termination). B is correct. Canadian human rights law protect employees with disabilities. In this case, Geraldine has been a model employee and her behaviour clearly shows a possible case of substance (alcohol) abuse, which is viewed as a disability protected under human rights legislation. Employers are obligated to offer accommodation and must demonstrate they have done so, e.g., offered Geraldine a rehabilitation program. Even if they were going to terminate her, a disciplinary meeting should probably be the first step. C is incorrect. If her manager is mistaken, the organization may well be losing a model employee and facing a human rights lawsuit (i.e., for failure to accommodate a disability) and a wrongful termination suit. Reference(s): Unit 12, Module 3: Common Reasons for Termination Part 2 New Dominion Stores v. U.S.W.A., Local 414, [1997] O.L.A.A. No. 553 British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SCR 3 Ontario Nurses’ Association v. London Health Sciences Centre, 2011 CanLII 58102 (ON LA) Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Thunder Bay Health Sciences Centre, October 27, 2010 [unreported] Direct Energy v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 975 (Tomas Grievance), [2009] O.L.A.A. No. 216 (QL)
Ronald and Geraldine work for Beds for Badlands, a not-for-profit organization with offices in southern Ontario, the Alberta Badlands, and the Dakota Badlands. Both Ronald and Geraldine have worked at the Ontario location for the past 7 years. Throughout their tenure, they have been model employees, each regularly receiving glowing performance reviews. Recently, the Ontario office was assigned a new manager, Annika, who transferred from the Dakota branch. Annika approaches Stuart, the local HR manager, for help with a situation that has come to her attention. Annika informs Stuart that she has learned that Geraldine has a serious drinking problem and has repeatedly come to work intoxicated. It seems that staff have reported concerns over the years, but the problem was largely ignored by the previous manager. In addition, last week Geraldine was caught stealing a portable printer from the office. Although the item has only limited value, other pieces of office equipment have been going missing for quite some time. Annika learned that, over the past year, items have gone missing worth more than $5,000. When Annika met with Geraldine about the theft and her drinking, Geraldine claimed she only took the printer. She insisted it was an isolated act brought on by her struggle with alcohol abuse, which she acknowledged was a problem and said she wanted to get help with. Despite Geraldine’s response, Annika suspects Geraldine took most of the missing items, and she wants to make an example of Geraldine by terminating her with cause. How will Geraldine’s admission of a substance abuse problem affect Annika’s ability to terminate her? a) It will make it harder for Annika to show just cause for termination. b) It will make it easier for Annika to show just cause for termination. c) It will not affect Annika’s ability to terminate Geraldine.
The answer is a. It will make it harder for Annika to show just cause for termination. Functional Area: A1 Rationale(s): A is correct. The fact that Geraldine has a disability means she should be considered for accommodation before any termination, especially as she has requested help. B is incorrect. Because substance abuse is recognized as a disability, Geraldine’s admission will make terminating her a human rights violation. C is incorrect. It will make her termination more complicated as Geraldine will be considered to have a disability, which the organization is required to accommodate before considering termination. Reference(s): Unit 12, Module 4: Sensitive Terminations Ontario Nurses’ Association v. London Health Sciences Centre, 2011 CanLII 58102 (ON LA) Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Thunder Bay Health Sciences Centre, October 27, 2010 [unreported] Direct Energy v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 975 (Tomas Grievance), [2009] O.L.A.A. No. 216 (QL)
Ronald and Geraldine work for Beds for Badlands, a not-for-profit organization with offices in southern Ontario, the Alberta Badlands, and the Dakota Badlands. Both Ronald and Geraldine have worked at the Ontario location for the past 7 years. Throughout their tenure, they have been model employees, each regularly receiving glowing performance reviews. Recently, the Ontario office was assigned a new manager, Annika, who transferred from the Dakota branch. Annika approaches Stuart, the local HR manager, for help with a situation that has come to her attention. Annika informs Stuart that she has learned that Geraldine has a serious drinking problem and has repeatedly come to work intoxicated. It seems that staff have reported concerns over the years, but the problem was largely ignored by the previous manager. In addition, last week Geraldine was caught stealing a portable printer from the office. Although the item has only limited value, other pieces of office equipment have been going missing for quite some time. Annika learned that, over the past year, items have gone missing worth more than $5,000. When Annika met with Geraldine about the theft and her drinking, Geraldine claimed she only took the printer. She insisted it was an isolated act brought on by her struggle with alcohol abuse, which she acknowledged was a problem and said she wanted to get help with. Despite Geraldine’s response, Annika suspects Geraldine took most of the missing items, and she wants to make an example of Geraldine by terminating her with cause. Stuart investigates the thefts further and determines that, except for the portable printer, it was actually Ronald who stole all the other items from the office. Should Stuart recommend Annika terminate Ronald with cause? Why? a) Yes. Ongoing theft of this type has damaged the trust between the employer and employee, and termination with cause is warranted. b) No. This is not enough to justify termination with cause. Progressive discipline would be more appropriate. c) No. Termination with cause is not justified, but as the behaviour has been going on for some time, Ronald should be terminated without cause.
The answer is a. Yes. Ongoing theft of this type has damaged the trust between the employer and employee, and termination with cause is warranted. Functional Area: A1 Rationale(s): A is correct. Although theft will not always result in termination, given that the theft here has been ongoing and is of items worth significant value, this is a clear case where the employee is not entitled to notice because their actions are “of wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer.” It would be difficult to find any case where this type of theft would not result in termination with cause, even if close to every mitigating factor was in the employee’s favour. B is incorrect. While progressive discipline is a staple of Canadian employment law, theft and fraud are, as a matter of practice, difficult areas to see progressive discipline short of termination used. This is because theft and fraud severely undermine the trust implicit in the employment relationship. C is incorrect. It would not be advisable, financially or practically, to provide him with 7 years’ worth of notice pay and benefits. This is a clear case where termination with cause is warranted. Reference(s): Unit 11, Module 6: Common reasons for termination New Dominion Stores v. U.S.W.A., Local 414, [1997] O.L.A.A. No. 553 ESA Regulation 288/01, s. 2(1)(3)
Ronald and Geraldine work for Beds for Badlands, a not-for-profit organization with offices in southern Ontario, the Alberta Badlands, and the Dakota Badlands. Both Ronald and Geraldine have worked at the Ontario location for the past 7 years. Throughout their tenure, they have been model employees, each regularly receiving glowing performance reviews. Recently, the Ontario office was assigned a new manager, Annika, who transferred from the Dakota branch. Annika approaches Stuart, the local HR manager, for help with a situation that has come to her attention. Annika informs Stuart that she has learned that Geraldine has a serious drinking problem and has repeatedly come to work intoxicated. It seems that staff have reported concerns over the years, but the problem was largely ignored by the previous manager. In addition, last week Geraldine was caught stealing a portable printer from the office. Although the item has only limited value, other pieces of office equipment have been going missing for quite some time. Annika learned that, over the past year, items have gone missing worth more than $5,000. When Annika met with Geraldine about the theft and her drinking, Geraldine claimed she only took the printer. She insisted it was an isolated act brought on by her struggle with alcohol abuse, which she acknowledged was a problem and said she wanted to get help with. Despite Geraldine’s response, Annika suspects Geraldine took most of the missing items, and she wants to make an example of Geraldine by terminating her with cause. When Stuart confronts Ronald about the thefts, Ronald admits to stealing all the items but claims he has kleptomania, a condition that results in the uncontrollable urge to steal. What action should Stuart recommend now, with this new information? a) Terminate Ronald with cause since he admitted to the thefts. b) Terminate Ronald without cause since the behaviour, although the result of a medical condition, is likely to continue. c) Recommend Ronald seek treatment for his kleptomania and proceed to termination only if he is unwilling to do so.
The answer is c. Recommend Ronald seek treatment for his kleptomania and proceed to termination only if he is unwilling to do so. Functional Area: A1 Rationale(s): A is incorrect. Ronald’s disability will make this action challenging unless he has been given the chance to seek treatment. B is incorrect. Efforts should be made to allow Ronald the opportunity to seek treatment before he is terminated. C is correct. Ronald should be encouraged to seek treatment. Should he prove unable or unwilling to complete this treatment or should he reoffend, termination should be considered. Kleptomania will not typically excuse the actions of an employee because, even if it justified, it is very difficult to supervise this type of worker: while he has a condition that would likely qualify as a disability under the OHRC, the employer would also have fulfilled its obligations to attempt to provide accommodation and cannot employ someone who is actively stealing from their business (it is a bona fide occupational requirement in all jobs to not steal). Reference(s): Unit 11, Module 6: Common reasons for termination Canadian National Railway v. CAW-Canada, 1994 CarswellNat 1658, 37 C.L.A.S. 57, 43 L.A.C. (4th) 129 Loblaws Supermarkets Ltd. v. U.F.C.W., Local 1000A, [1998] L.V.I. 2937-4, [1998] O.L.A.A. No. 381 http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/guidelines-accessible-education/undue-hardship-standard
