THE EMPLOYERS' EDGE
Long-Term Employee’s Workplace Affair Amounts to Misconduct Serious Enough to Justify Dismissal
Employers are often faced with difficulty demonstrating sufficient justification amounting to cause for dismissal. However, in a recent case an employer was able to demonstrate just cause for dismissing a long-term employee with an exemplary employment record.
Mr. Bryan Reichard was a purchasing manager at Kuntz Electroplating Inc. At the time of his termination he had 23 years of service and was an exemplary employee. In 2003 Mr. Reichard, who was married at the time, began having an affair with an administrative assistant, Ms. Thompson, who did not report directly to Mr. Reichard when the affair began.
In 2005 Kuntz introduced a written non-fraternization policy. The policy required all employees involved in a romantic relationship to notify their immediate supervisor. The policy further stated that failure to report a relationship could result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
Between the introduction of the policy in 2005 and Mr. Reichard’s termination in 2008, he had been asked on several occasions by three senior executives whether he was having an affair with Ms. Thompson. Each time Mr. Reichard denied the affair and on a number of occasions stated that he was aware of the non-fraternization policy.
Throughout the affair Mr. Reichard provided preferential treatment to Ms. Thompson. He gave her glowing reviews and recommended wage increases and a transfer to a position that reports directly to him. He took extended lunches with Ms. Thompson and treated her in a manner that gave way to rumours that Mr. Reichard and Ms. Thompson were romantically involved.
In 2008 Mr. Reichard shared the details of the affair with another employee, who reported the affair to the employer. The employer confronted Mr. Reichard, and Mr. Reichard admitted to the affair. He was immediately suspended and ordered not to return to the workplace until advised otherwise. Nonetheless, Mr. Reichard returned to his office on two occasions following his suspension. Shortly after the employer found out that Mr. Reichard violated its order not to return to the workplace, Mr. Reichard’s employment was terminated.
Mr. Reichard filed a claim for wrongful dismissal. In Reichard v. Kuntz the Superior Court of Justice upheld the dismissal. The Court found that Mr. Reichard continuously and deliberately lied to Kuntz and further disobeyed an order not to return to the workplace. Mr. Reichard’s misconduct was exacerbated by the fact that he was in a managerial role and was supposed to lead by example. The affair, the preferential treatment Mr. Reichard showed to Mr. Thompson, the many denials of the affair and Mr. Reichard’s disregard for his employer’s orders all led the Court to find that Kuntz could no longer trust Mr. Reichard and was justified in terminating his employment.
It is rare for courts to uphold dismissals of long-term employees with otherwise exemplary records. However, in this case there was a clear power imbalance between Mr. Reichard and Ms. Thompson, and Mr. Reichard took advantage of his managerial position to provide preferential treatment to Ms. Thompson. The additional breaches of the employer’s non-fraternization policy, the denial of the affair and the violation of the employer’s order to remain off its premises all led the Court to conclude that these circumstances justify dismissal. This is a welcomed decision for employers, and provides some guidance with respect to circumstances where just cause will be upheld. The lawyers at Crawford Chondon & Partners can assist employers with dismissals of long-term employees where allegations of cause may be appropriate.
Please Note: This blog has been prepared as an informational service for our clients and other interested parties. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, a complete statement of the law or opinion on any subject. Although we endeavour to ensure the accuracy of the content, no one should act upon the information provided without a thorough examination of the law after the facts of a specific situation are fully considered.