Drunk Driving Just Cause Termination

Question: Discuss about the Drunk Driving for Just Cause Termination. Answer: Introduction: In the case of Dziecielski v. Lighting Dimensions Inc., 2012 ONSC 1877, the wrongful dismissal and oppression of the employee of Lighting Dimensions was brought forward (Kwasniewski, 2013). However, the issue which was presented by the company was related to the serious workplace misconduct. Intoxication is considered as a serious misconduct at the workplace. And drinking and driving is a grave conduct, in any sphere of life. The question is this case was whether drinking and driving at the workplace, using the official vehicle, could be sufficient grounds for dismissing an employee? This was because the employee had claimed that this was a wrongful dismissal; which dictated that the employer had insufficient grounds to terminate the employment. So, there were two key issues in this case, the wrongful termination and the serious misconduct (Johnston, 2013). Facts of the Case Dziecielski was the vice-president of Lighting Dimensions and had been working in the company for twenty-three years without any sort of issues. On 23rd April, 2007, he stopped for lunch, where he consumed 4 beer bottles, within a period of one hour and operated the company vehicle, which resulted in a single-vehicle accident. This accident was very serious in nature, as the vehicle of the company was demolished and Dziecielski sustained serious injuries. The investigation by the law enforcement revealed that Dziecielski was legally intoxicated when the collision took place. He was, later on, charged with a range of criminal offences arising due to drunk driving. As a result of these, he was dismissed from the company. In response, Dziecielski sued for wrongful dismissal, citing his clean record before the single incident (Diab, 2014). Issues before the Court The issue here was not related to the intoxication of the plaintiff, but whether a single isolated event could be considered as the reason for a valid dismissal. In order to establish that the dismissal was fair, for the serious misconduct, usually an investigation is conducted. Even though it is not a compulsion over the employer to conduct a specific kind of investigation before making a decision to dismiss with cause, the onus lies over the employer to consider the facts which are required for understanding what took place, both fully and in a fair manner (The Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2012). Usually the isolated or single incidents are not considered as the sufficient reason to dismiss an employee, who has been associated with the company for a long period of time, specifically when they have a clean performance and disciplinary record. The standard of proof is the repeated or the grave nature of the serious misconduct. So, the court had to consider if the single event was egregious enough to justify the dismissal. Again, intoxication in itself does not justify the automatic termination and so the employer would have to show the gravity of conduct, resulting from intoxication (The Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2012). Position of parties The plaintiff claimed that the defendant waited for a full month before terminating his employment. Moreover, he did not give any opportunity to him, during this time, to explain his conduct. He further raised that intoxication cannot be considered as a sole justification for the dismissal. A claim was also made that this was an isolated event, in the entire 23 years of his service, which showed a clean record (Meehan, 2013a). He had given his life to the company and was now in his middle age, without a university degree, which would make it difficult for him to re-enter the market. So the dismissal was not only harsh, but wrongful as well. Dziecielski had a strong and clean record regarding his discipline and there were no complaints regarding his performance. While terminating him, the company did not weigh the misconduct proportionality (The Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2012). The arguments raised by the defendant were that the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of driving the vehicle, which not only resulted in an accident, but an injury to the plaintiff and the destruction of the companys car. They claimed that the plaintiff damaged the vehicle which he was driving without the requisite authorization and had criminal charges pending on him. He had also breached the related provisions contained in the Employee Handbook. They raised the issue of the plaintiff being guilty of serious misconduct (The Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2012). Decision of the Judge with Reasons The Court of Appeal of Ontario gave a short decision, which was released on 11th September, 2013 upheld Dziecielskis termination (Meehan, 2013b). The reason given for this termination was that the conduct of Dziecielski did amount to serious misconduct, even though he had a clean record in the past (Schein, 2013). The court emphasized that for deciding the case, the analysis had to be based on the facts and it had to be contextual. For justifying the dismissal of Dziecielski, the court analyzed the following factors: Was the employee guilty for the serious misconduct? Whether the employee suffered from a disability? Whether the misconduct was a mere poor judgment on part of the employee? Did the misconduct breach any express provisions contained in the agreement of employment? For considering the criminal conduct of Dziecielski, the court considered the following questions: Was Dziecielski culpable for the misconduct of criminal nature or of the alleged criminal conduct? Was it detrimental of prejudicial to the business of the employer? Was there evidence for the possible or actual harm done to the employer? It was noted in this case, that the intoxication could not be justified as a cause of dismissal and instead, the determination had to be made by considering all the facts, which included the actions of Dziecielski (The Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2012). These actions depicted that his conduct was very serious misconduct, and which was prejudicial to the business of the employer. Further, this included a crime; Dziecielski not only endangered his life, but also of the public (Nobes, 2014). The conduct of employee damaged the property of the employer, during the course of employment (Diab, 2014). The facts of the case clearly showed that there were no questions to raise a suggestion that Dziecielski was under any form of substance abuse or had such a problem in the past. In case that had been the case, the decision of the Court would have been different, as substance abuse is a disability under the Human Rights Code of Ontario. So, Dziecielski could have attained a protection under this code (Diab, 2014). While deciding upon the binding nature of the Employees Handbook over the employees, the judges concluded that in any circumstance, Dziecielski should have understood that, after consuming the beer and driving the truck, he was breaching not only the serious workplace rules, but also the criminal law. A prudent person would have considered these factors. Also, the conduct of Dziecielski was detrimental for Lightings business. This is because the employer was at the risk of being liable vicariously to the third parties (Devry Smith Frank LLP, 2014). The suppliers and customers may form a negative view about the employer because of Dziecielskis conduct. So, the reputation of the employer was also at stake (The Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2012). Opinion of the Group In the opinion of the group, the decision was harsh and so, the group disagrees with this decision. The reason behind the disagreement is that the court erred in considering that Dziecielski had given twenty three years of his life for the companys benefits. He had a clean record, which showed that this was not done deliberately. Moreover, he himself was injured, which was a lesson in itself. Along with this, he was facing criminal charges, which already declined his prospective for a future job opportunity. Hence, by dismissing Dziecielski from the job, where he had excelled and cherished, was wrong and unfair. The incident should have been considered as an isolated incident and Dziecielskis past record should have been given more significance. So, the dismissal should have been taken as a wrongful dismissal, instead of a correct one. References Devry Smith Frank LLP. (2014). Employment And Human Resource Seminar. Retrieved from: https://www.devrylaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/HR_Seminar_JAN30FEB3.pdf Diab, K. (2014). How much misconduct must an employer tolerate prior to dismissing an employee for cause?. Retrieved from: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c2ab06db-ecb1-43dd-b253-e2c826587300 Go2HR. (2017). Drunk Driving: Just Cause For Termination. Retrieved from: https://www.go2hr.ca/articles/drunk-driving-just-cause-termination Johnston, M. (2013). Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds For Cause Dismissal of Employee Caught Driving Company Vehicle While Intoxicated. Retrieved from: https://filion.on.ca/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-for-cause-dismissal-of-employee-caught-driving-company-vehicle-while-intoxicated/ Kwasniewski, B.W. (2013). Drinking And Driving Employee Loses Job. Retrieved from: https://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2013/chylb310.htm Meehan, K.L. (2013a). Is Drinking and Driving Cause for Dismissal?. Retrieved from: https://hicksmorley.com/2013/10/04/is-drinking-and-driving-just-cause-for-dismissal/ Meehan, K.L. (2013b). Court of Appeal Upholds Termination of Employee for Driving Company Vehicle While Intoxicated. Retrieved from: https://hicksmorley.com/2013/10/22/court-of-appeal-upholds-termination-of-employee-for-driving-company-vehicle-while-intoxicated/ Nobes, C. (2014). Can you fire an employee for a serious one-off mistake?. Retrieved from: https://www.hrmonline.ca/hr-news/can-you-fire-an-employee-for-a-serious-oneoff-mistake-177686.aspx Schein, I. (2013). Drunk Driving and Just Cause for Dismissal. Retrieved from: https://irvinschein.com/2013/10/11/drunk-driving-and-just-cause-for-dismissal-2/ The Canadian Legal Information Institute. (2012). Dziecielski v. Lighting Dimensions Inc., 2012 ONSC 1877 (CanLII). Retrieved from: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc1877/2012onsc1877.html?resultIndex=2