'Deliberately deceitful and dishonest': BC Supreme Court condemns time theft, insubordination
The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently dealt with a wrongful dismissal case where a project manager with over 20 years of service was terminated for alleged time theft and insubordination.
The worker claimed he was dismissed without cause and sought damages, arguing the termination provision in his employment contract was void for lack of consideration. He maintained his time-keeping practices were long-established and that he genuinely believed his leave request had been approved.
After his termination in January 2024, the worker sued for 22-24 months' notice valued at over $200,000, plus aggravated damages of $30,000 and punitive damages of $50,000, arguing the employer had failed to properly investigate before dismissing him.
The worker had been employed by a steel fabrication company from 1992 to 2000, and again from 2004 until his dismissal in 2024. Over his career, he had progressed to project manager. The family-owned business had operated since 1965, with the current owner, Mr. Steunenberg, taking over in 2009.
The company had a system where office staff could accumulate extra hours beyond their 40-hour weekly requirement and receive either payment or time off. This system relied on what the court called an "honour policy" - employees were trusted to accurately record their time.
The dispute centred on the worker's practice of adding 30 minutes daily to his records for coffee breaks he didn't take. While he claimed this was standard practice, the court found "it was never a term of [the worker's] employment that he was entitled to paid coffee breaks or to record 30 minutes per day as time worked for coffee breaks that he did not take."
During a May 2022 performance review attended by the owner and the general manager, the employer discovered the worker was recording 30 minutes daily for untaken coffee breaks. At this meeting, he was explicitly told to stop this practice.
Despite this clear direction, the worker continued adding these breaks throughout 2023. His year-end reconciliation included these 30-minute daily increments without disclosing the practice, overstating his hours by approximately 105 hours between January and December 2023.
The court calculated that with these times removed, the worker had actually worked fewer hours than required rather than building up extra time. Justice Callaghan stated: "I find that [the worker] was deliberately deceitful and dishonest in the reporting of his hours worked."
The insubordination issue emerged when the worker wanted additional time off in late 2023. After being granted two weeks of vacation in December, he emailed the general manager stating he would be "off for the rest of this year" using what he claimed were accumulated extra hours.
The general manager responded that while his approved vacation could proceed, the additional time off was not authorized. Despite this clear instruction, the worker replied that he "will take the time off" anyway.
The court rejected his claim of misunderstanding, finding "[the worker] knew his request was not approved and went anyway." Justice Callaghan determined this "insubordination was wilful, flagrant grave, and serious" and the worker "was openly defiant to his superior, [the general manager], and was goading him to 'let him go'."
The court applied the test from McKinley v. BC Tel to determine whether dismissal was justified. This test examines whether "the employee's misconduct gave rise to a breakdown in the employment relationship justifying dismissal, or whether the misconduct could be reconciled with sustaining the employment relationship by imposing a more 'proportionate' disciplinary response."
Several factors made dismissal appropriate:
Justice Callaghan concluded: "[The worker's] conduct was deliberate, flagrant and serious. It was not merely dishonest but was fraudulent. [The worker] had been expressly told he was not entitled to record 30 minutes per day as time worked for coffee breaks not taken. Despite this, he submitted a time report for 2023 that did exactly what he was told not to do."
The worker argued the employer had condoned his practice, but the court "rejected this submission outright," finding the employer stopped the practice immediately upon discovery.
He also claimed inadequate warnings before termination. The court disagreed: "[The employer] did give a warning in the meeting of May 4, 2022. [The worker] was under no misapprehension. He knew he was not entitled to treat coffee breaks as extra hours worked but did so anyway."
The court cited precedent that "wilful disobedience of a lawful and reasonable order shows a disregard — a complete disregard — of a condition essential to the contract of service." Justice Callaghan found "there was a breakdown in the employment relationship justifying the immediate dismissal" and the circumstances were "so egregious that no more warnings were required."
