The employer and employee relationship between Don and Rebecca is governed by various statutes but most importantly the Employment Standards Act (Filsinger 2005). Under the Act, an employee can be terminated from their employment under conditions such as: upon dismissal of the employee or when the employer stops employment of the employee included instances of insolvency and bankruptcy of the employer if the employer ‘constructively” dismisses an employee and they (the employee) resigns, as a response to the constructive dismissal, within a reasonable time (Motherselev v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd).
Facts
Rebecca’s job was, however, terminated without issuance of a notice, nor was she given any termination pay. The only instances where employment can be terminated without the employer issuing a termination notice, as provided by the act, are: when an employer is guilty of willful misconduct, willful neglect of duties assigned to them and the employer has not considered that as trivial as to condone or disobedience (Filsinger 2005). Other instances are if the employee was hired for a specific task or period, is employed in construction, builds, or repairs ships, termination as a result of employee reaching retirement age, has rejected an offer of reasonable alternative employment by the current employer, upon employee’s termination as a result of lockout of work place or strike and, in case an employee is on a temporary layoff and, when the employee does not return to work within a reasonable time after being recalled back to duty (Henry v. Foxco Ltd ). .
Looking at the various provisions of the act of termination of employment without the issuance of a termination notice, Don would cite willful misconduct and neglect of duty which of course Don did not condone and fired Rebecca (Donalson v Philippine Arlines Inc.). However, though Rebecca did not turn up to work then next day, she returned a day after and offered her apology explaining the circumstances under which she reacted to her boss and her situation as at the time. Being emotionally disturbed hence not in a position to make a fair judgment, it’s beyond any reasonable doubt that Rebecca had no intention of doing what she did. The employer’s actions were, however, justifiable as Rebecca did not only neglect her duty but also exhibited gross misconduct by insulting her boss (Donalson v Philippine Airlines Inc.).
It’s very possible that if Don were aware of Rebecca’s tribulations, he would not have considered terminating her employment. Also, because Rebecca responded that she would rather quit than apologize, a day’s absence isn’t reasonable enough for Don to consider that Rebecca had made good her threat to quit her job (Filsinger 2005).
Issue and Decision
The legal test, in this case, is the intention of the employee when she made her threat to quit her job rather than apologize. Since Rebecca returned a day later, explained to her boss why she reacted the way she did and even offered an apology, I would give her the benefit of doubt that she did not intend to react the way she did and that she was not in her right, normal and emotionally sober state (Motherselev v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd). Rebecca should, therefore, be restored back to her work but should be advised to understand the employer-employee regulations (Motherselev v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd). She should then beware that tendering her resignation is a proof of quitting employment and can be adduced in a court of law and that a mere threat to quit an employment isn’t sufficient to prove resignation from the job. Don on the other side should know that employees are human and, therefore, should always give them reasonable time to test if they really mean what they say when it comes to making threats of quitting jobs (Motherselev v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd ).
On the second case involving Frank and ACME Inc., the employer had a right to fire Frank on the basis of a just cause. The just cause, in this case, is the fact that Frank was dishonest to the employer about something as important as seeking family leave. His dishonesty is that though he really had a sick aunt in Detroit and it’s on that basis that he was given a family leave, he just needed to be out of the job to attend Stanley Cup Ice Hockey final game (Filsinger 2005). An employer may have a just cause to fire an employee in circumstances where the employee: uses drugs or alcohol which interfere with the employee’s performance at the job, ignores work place rules, policies and regulations, shows intentional disobedience to the boss, shows disloyalty or in a position of conflict of interest with the employer amongst others (Whitehouse v RBC Dominion Securities Inc.)
Considering the facts of this case, Frank reluctantly apologized for his actions and agreed to back out of the youth program. A critical look at the claims of just cause by the HR, she does not cite any clause in ACME’s policy that does not allow the use of alcohol. On the same note, she does not cite any policy in the youth program that bars any of their employees who is involved in the program not to partake of alcohol (Filsinger 2005). Although it’s hypocritical for Frank to be on a mission to encourage the youth rid their lives of alcohol and drug abuse, the fact that he partook of alcohol is only immoral as far as his hypocrisy is concerned, and, therefore, one can argue that he has no moral authority to champion on a mission to rid the youth of alcohol and drugs. However, his acts are not illegal as far as his employment is concerned (Filsinger 2005).
The issue and legal test
The component of the just cause claims as explained by the HR is only right as far as dishonesty is concerned but not in as far as his actions during the after-match activities are concerned. As a judge, unless otherwise provided in the employment contract agreement between Frank and AMCE Inc. limited or in a policy that regulates AMCE’s employees who are engaged in the youth program, the misconduct claim by the HR should not be part of the reason for a just cause (Graham v. Canadian Cancer Society). With that being the case, it’s appropriate to apply legal test to the issue of sufficient reason for a just cause. It’s also necessary to analyze the weight of each of the two components of the just cause claims and determine which one informed the decision to fire the employee (Henson v. Champion Feed Services Ltd.). It’s, therefore, necessary to ask the question “If Frank had dishonestly requested for a family leave and the company learned of this, would the employer have had sufficient reasons to fire him citing a just cause?
Decision
My honest legal position on this matter is that the employer being dishonest for once, which did not affect the company, should call for a punitive measure or even a warning from the company but not outright dismissal (Graham v. Canadian Cancer Society). Secondly, that Frank’s hypocrisy which tainted the company’s image as far as the youth program and the public is concerned should have called for the company withdrawing him from involvement in the youth program. Although on moral grounds Frank’s actions were contrary to the expected moral standards as far as the youth program is concerned, his actions of partaking in alcohol are not illegal (Filsinger 2005). However, the fact that Frank was also involved in other illegal activities like causing damage to road signs and packed cars will attract other lawsuits that are likely to damage the image of the employer.
Considering the damage that a decision to retain the employee would do to AMCE Inc. and their youth program, the company was right to fire Frank (McKinley v. BC Tel). There would in such a case exist a situation of conflict of interest, that to retain a good and that to protect the image of the company and in such a case of conflicting interest, the employer has a just cause to fire the employee.
References
Filsinger, K. J. (2005). Employment Law for Business and Human Resources Professionals. Emond Montgomery Publication.
