Several years later, Harrigan stumbled upon evidence Campbell had been using the gas card for his wife's vehicle and after a confrontation asked him to leave the workplace pending investigation. She fired Campbell when she discovered further evidence of expense and benefits fraud. After he was fired she found evidence he had taken two salary advances and contributed to an inflated inventory figure.
Campbell sued for wrongful dismissal and went to trial.
The justice decided that the original grounds did not hold up for dismissal because use of the gas cards was ambiguous, and Campbell had reasonable grounds to believe his spouse was entitled to his benefits.
However, the judge found that the new grounds of unapproved salary advances and inflated inventory were so serious they amounted to just cause, despite being discovered after termination.
"The lessons for employers speak to the importance of a strategic approach to firing for cause and an aggressive stance in defending wrongful dismissal actions," employment lawyer Howard Levit said.On Page Two: the recipe for success
#pb#
Levitt said five key steps contributed to Harrigan's success:
Anticipate the defences
"Harrigan should have thoroughly interviewed Campbell before dismissing him. This would create an objective transcript, reducing the element of surprise in the trial and eliminating newly developed excuses after the employee retains counsel."
Record interviews
"In this case, the court was faced with divergent versions as to what Campbell said in his defence to the gas card allegations. In the absence of a recording, the court sided with the employee."
Do the legwork before termination
"The court determined there was no evidence that an employee could not claim insurance benefits for a separated spouse. That issue should have been sorted out before the dismissal."
Take a hard look
"The courts require employers to apply a principle of proportionality to an employee's wrongdoing. Even if the employee has misbehaved, it must be sufficiently serious to amount to cause. Harrigan assumed a considerable risk by relying on her original grounds for termination."
Follow the pattern
"Harrigan instinctively understood the old Quebecois saying that "Three follows two." Because dishonesty is rarely isolated, every aspect of an employees's work, including expense claims and work reports, should be scrutinized even after firing. I maintain that if you find dishonesty in one area, you are bound to find it in several."