An employee who does his work well can be fired for cause if he is insubordinate to his supervisor and cannot get along with his co-workers
An employee who does his work well can be fired for cause if he is insubordinate to his supervisor and cannot get along with his co-workers.
James Holwen worked for 10 years for Alberta Plywood Ltd. He was described as a good worker who never missed a day and often arrived on the job up to an hour early.
His employment was terminated in June 1998 for what the company claimed was a series of incidents of unacceptable behaviour. He filed an action against the company for wrongful dismissal and a separate action against his immediate supervisor Darryl Schuster for intentional infliction of mental distress by harassment, insults, humiliation and provocation.
In his action against the company he claimed it knew, or ought to have known, about Schuster’s oppressive conduct and was thus vicariously liable.
Early in Holwen’s tenure, Schuster disciplined him for three incidents of careless driving of a forklift vehicle. It resulted in a demotion. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found Holwen deserved to be removed from his position as a forklift operator, as his driving abilities and temperament made him unsuitable for the job. Already there was an indication Holwen’s attitude was he would do his job to the best of his ability, but getting it done was more important than safety concerns or other employees. Insubordination had not yet entered the picture, ruled the court.
Over the next five years there were eight disciplinary actions taken against Holwen. Most of them were on complaints by Schuster and involved Holwen’s interactions with himself and co-workers. One incident of yelling at a colleague may have been grounds for dismissal in and of itself; and by the end of this period Holwen was openly defying his foreman and one entered his workspace at one’s own risk, the court said.
In November 1997 Holwen met with another manager and documented 18 incidents where Schuster had harassed or provoked him. The company investigated the complaints, but a witness Holwen said could substantiate most of his claims did not support his version of events.
The working relationship deteriorated rapidly after that. There were more instances of insubordination to the foreman and yelling to colleagues, leading to Holwen being terminated.
The court found Schuster’s conduct from November 1997 constituted cumulative grounds for summary dismissal. Schuster had a sullen, menacing attitude towards those in authority. Even though he did his own work well, his failure to respect and interact with his supervisors and co-workers was a disruptive and destructive force.
For more information see:
• Holwen v. Alberta Plywood Ltd., 2005 CarswellAlta 901, 2005 ABQB 464 (Alta. Q.B.)
James Holwen worked for 10 years for Alberta Plywood Ltd. He was described as a good worker who never missed a day and often arrived on the job up to an hour early.
His employment was terminated in June 1998 for what the company claimed was a series of incidents of unacceptable behaviour. He filed an action against the company for wrongful dismissal and a separate action against his immediate supervisor Darryl Schuster for intentional infliction of mental distress by harassment, insults, humiliation and provocation.
In his action against the company he claimed it knew, or ought to have known, about Schuster’s oppressive conduct and was thus vicariously liable.
Early in Holwen’s tenure, Schuster disciplined him for three incidents of careless driving of a forklift vehicle. It resulted in a demotion. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found Holwen deserved to be removed from his position as a forklift operator, as his driving abilities and temperament made him unsuitable for the job. Already there was an indication Holwen’s attitude was he would do his job to the best of his ability, but getting it done was more important than safety concerns or other employees. Insubordination had not yet entered the picture, ruled the court.
Over the next five years there were eight disciplinary actions taken against Holwen. Most of them were on complaints by Schuster and involved Holwen’s interactions with himself and co-workers. One incident of yelling at a colleague may have been grounds for dismissal in and of itself; and by the end of this period Holwen was openly defying his foreman and one entered his workspace at one’s own risk, the court said.
In November 1997 Holwen met with another manager and documented 18 incidents where Schuster had harassed or provoked him. The company investigated the complaints, but a witness Holwen said could substantiate most of his claims did not support his version of events.
The working relationship deteriorated rapidly after that. There were more instances of insubordination to the foreman and yelling to colleagues, leading to Holwen being terminated.
The court found Schuster’s conduct from November 1997 constituted cumulative grounds for summary dismissal. Schuster had a sullen, menacing attitude towards those in authority. Even though he did his own work well, his failure to respect and interact with his supervisors and co-workers was a disruptive and destructive force.
For more information see:
• Holwen v. Alberta Plywood Ltd., 2005 CarswellAlta 901, 2005 ABQB 464 (Alta. Q.B.)
