B.C. woman fired after 'strongly worded' email wins $81K for wrongful termination

[canada-man]

A B.C. woman who was fired over one "strongly worded" email has been awarded $81,100 in compensation for wrongful dismissal, according to a supreme court decision.

Construction company Gisborne Holdings Ltd. was found to have terminated Kavita Lefebvre without cause in 2022. After a trial earlier this year, the judge determined that email in question did not constitute the sort of "egregious misconduct" that justifies firing a worker for cause.

"Summary dismissal was not a proportionate response to the email, which I find did not rise to the level of insubordination. The email was direct and strongly worded, but it was not rude or unprofessional," Justice Julianne Lamb wrote in a decision posted online Wednesday.


The court heard that Lefebvre was hired on an 18-month contract as an administrator to cover a parental leave.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-woman-fir...l-wins-81k-for-wrongful-termination-1.6696294

 

[UAL1234]

nice.
Construction companies can be very ruthless and tend to have psychopathic qualities as bosses.

They work you half to death at times. Especially if you are not a skilled tradesperson.

no wonder they are having so many staffing issues.

People are waking up and not putting up with the BS

 

[luvsdaty]

nice.
Construction companies can be very ruthless and tend to have psychopathic qualities as bosses.

They work you half to death at times. Especially if you are not a skilled tradesperson.

no wonder they are having so many staffing issues.

People are waking up and not putting up with the BS

Yup,nice thing about being a union tradesman is if the employer wants to be a dick(especially when it's booming) I ask for a layoff and go back down to the hall and go back on the hiring board.

 

[rlock]

The smoking gun of the ruling was this, IMHO:

The company has a written policy of "progressive discipline," which requires a formal warning and a suspension prior to termination.
... the fact that Gisborne has a progressive discipline policy that it did not make any attempt to follow ...

Suggests to me that their policy was just there to say they technically had one, when really it was nothing more than "I fire you if I don't like you."
Some people are just dickheads like that. Favouritism, unfavouritism still dominates.
And that's what likely got them ruled against.

She had recourse, and she was right in one sense - they did not follow their own rules. If an employee is bound by those rules, the employer is also.