A worker who contacted a Ministry of Labour inspector with safety concerns but didn’t get the answer he wanted, and then spread rumours that the MOL inspector had been “paid off” by the company, was dismissed for cause, an Ontario judge has decided.
The company, at the wrongful dismissal trial, denied that it dismissed the employee for complaining about safety issues. The company instead called evidence about a series of concerns with the employee’s performance, including allowing an unauthorized person to enter a restricted area; permitting three employees to leave work for one hour without punching their time card; approving a full skid of product that had labels missing; winking at a female employee and touching her hand; falling asleep during his shift; failing to wear a required face mask; attempting to engage co-workers against the company; and spreading rumours about the MOL inspector.
With respect to those rumours, three co-workers had signed a statement saying that the employee was spreading rumours that the MOL inspector was a “rat” and had been paid by the company to dismiss his complaints.
Shortly after receiving that signed statement, the company terminated the employee’s employment for creating a “poisoned work environment” and spreading false rumours about the MOL inspector. The company claimed just cause for dismissal.
At trial, the employer said that the MOL inspector had attended and had found no violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act or that they were minor.
With respect to whether the company had just cause to dismiss the employee, the judge decided that the “cumulative incidents were not minor or trifling. They affected the workplace as a whole”. The employee had been insubordinate and had attempted to harm the employer, including spreading rumours that the company was closing. The employee had not been fired in retaliation for raising safety issues. The company had just cause to dismiss the employee.
Chopra v. Easy Plastic Containers Limited, 2014 ONSC 3666 (CanLII)