Shalla v. Times Fiber Canada Ltd., 2001 CarswellOnt 5789 (Ont. L.R.B.)
In 1999 Brenda Shalla was fired without notice from Times Fiber Canada Ltd. for not wearing her safety glasses on several occasions. She had been warned about it several times and once even given a two-day suspension.
Other employees had regularly ignored the safety-glasses rule, with no consequences. In the spring of 1999 there was a “crackdown” on enforcement.
Shalla complained her glasses didn’t fit and were uncomfortable and said she was getting prescription ones. In the meantime, however, she didn’t wear any safety glasses.
When she took two visitors for a tour of the plant, none of whom were wearing safety glasses, the plant manager stopped them and mentioned the offence.
The next day Shalla was fired — even though she was wearing safety glasses.
The court said that even though the policy appeared to have been unevenly enforced with other employees, Shalla clearly did breach the policy and was “guilty of wilful misconduct or disobedience.”
Her appeal to be given statutory entitlement to termination and severance pay was dismissed, “not without some reluctance” by the court.
In 1999 Brenda Shalla was fired without notice from Times Fiber Canada Ltd. for not wearing her safety glasses on several occasions. She had been warned about it several times and once even given a two-day suspension.
Other employees had regularly ignored the safety-glasses rule, with no consequences. In the spring of 1999 there was a “crackdown” on enforcement.
Shalla complained her glasses didn’t fit and were uncomfortable and said she was getting prescription ones. In the meantime, however, she didn’t wear any safety glasses.
When she took two visitors for a tour of the plant, none of whom were wearing safety glasses, the plant manager stopped them and mentioned the offence.
The next day Shalla was fired — even though she was wearing safety glasses.
The court said that even though the policy appeared to have been unevenly enforced with other employees, Shalla clearly did breach the policy and was “guilty of wilful misconduct or disobedience.”
Her appeal to be given statutory entitlement to termination and severance pay was dismissed, “not without some reluctance” by the court.
