Worker’s termination for refusing to admit mistake proves insubordination and passing the buck can be grounds for dismissal
A serious error doesn’t necessarily justify or require discipline. However, refusing to accept blame for that error can cost an employee his or her job. Martha McGachie’s employment was characterized by a series of errors. When the mistakes mounted, she finally wore out her welcome at the Victoria, B.C., Immigrant & Refugee Centre.
An employment counsellor at the centre for nearly five years, McGachie drew the ire of her supervisor by disagreeing with him about how she should perform her job. At first, McGachie’s probationary period was extended. Following other mistakes her supervisor characterized as “serious”, she was warned further errors would result in her losing her job.
The final straw for the centre occurred when McGachie sent a document to the government agency funding its operations. She did so without first seeking approval by her supervisor, which she knew was standard policy. When the government agency reviewed the document, it realized the centre was providing services to some clients who were ineligible for funding. The agency then clarified its policy and the centre was left unable to service a number of clients that would have received support but for McGachie’s mistake.
McGachie was asked by her supervisor and the centre’s director to acknowledge her mistake in writing. McGachie responded in writing but, instead of admitting the error, she characterized their request as a “new term of employment tantamount to a probationary period.” McGachie was fired for cause and responded by suing for wrongful dismissal.
Recently, a British Columbia judge rejected the centre’s argument that McGachie’s mistake was so serious it warranted her dismissal for cause by itself or as the culminating event in a series of earlier errors she had been warned about. However, the court found McGachie’s summary dismissal was justified on the basis of her refusal to acknowledge the blame for the incident.
McGachie’s error did warrant some form of discipline and the requirement to acknowledge her mistake was a reasonable request, the court found. McGachie’s refusal to accept blame was deemed insubordination and was what ultimately buried her wrongful dismissal case at trial.
Employers should glean the following lessons into the law of wrongful dismissal:
Place the onus upon the employee. It is not open to an employee to simply refuse to obey a direction from a superior. A wilful refusal of a lawful directive can be grounds for summary dismissal or an argument that the employee effectively resigned. The decisive question is whether or not the request was reasonable. In this case, the court bluntly agreed that by directing McGachie to acknowledge her mistake in writing, the employer had acted sensibly.
Address mistakes intelligibly. A single mistake or even a series of consequential mistakes may not always convince the judge the employee’s dismissal for cause is a necessary or proportional response. The employer’s reaction to the error may sway the judge in one direction or another. Therefore, where discipline is appropriate, seek proper counsel to ensure incidents of misconduct can be relied upon where the need arises.
Keep proper records. Employee misconduct is not considered in isolation. The results in this case were influenced by McGachie’s employment history and, doubtless, the earlier mistakes she had also made.
For more information see:
• McGachie v. Victoria Immigrant & Refugee Centre Society, 2007 CarswellBC 184 (B.C. S.C.).
Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto employment lawyer specializing in the law of discipline and dismissal. He can be reached at [email protected] or www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com.
From the Archives
The case of McGachie v. Victoria Immigrant & Refugee Society was also covered in the Jan. 31, 2007 issue of Canadian Employment Law Today, appearing in You Make the Call. Did you get the decision right?
To view the article, simply click on Advanced Search and enter article #1194.
An employment counsellor at the centre for nearly five years, McGachie drew the ire of her supervisor by disagreeing with him about how she should perform her job. At first, McGachie’s probationary period was extended. Following other mistakes her supervisor characterized as “serious”, she was warned further errors would result in her losing her job.
The final straw for the centre occurred when McGachie sent a document to the government agency funding its operations. She did so without first seeking approval by her supervisor, which she knew was standard policy. When the government agency reviewed the document, it realized the centre was providing services to some clients who were ineligible for funding. The agency then clarified its policy and the centre was left unable to service a number of clients that would have received support but for McGachie’s mistake.
McGachie was asked by her supervisor and the centre’s director to acknowledge her mistake in writing. McGachie responded in writing but, instead of admitting the error, she characterized their request as a “new term of employment tantamount to a probationary period.” McGachie was fired for cause and responded by suing for wrongful dismissal.
Recently, a British Columbia judge rejected the centre’s argument that McGachie’s mistake was so serious it warranted her dismissal for cause by itself or as the culminating event in a series of earlier errors she had been warned about. However, the court found McGachie’s summary dismissal was justified on the basis of her refusal to acknowledge the blame for the incident.
McGachie’s error did warrant some form of discipline and the requirement to acknowledge her mistake was a reasonable request, the court found. McGachie’s refusal to accept blame was deemed insubordination and was what ultimately buried her wrongful dismissal case at trial.
Employers should glean the following lessons into the law of wrongful dismissal:
Place the onus upon the employee. It is not open to an employee to simply refuse to obey a direction from a superior. A wilful refusal of a lawful directive can be grounds for summary dismissal or an argument that the employee effectively resigned. The decisive question is whether or not the request was reasonable. In this case, the court bluntly agreed that by directing McGachie to acknowledge her mistake in writing, the employer had acted sensibly.
Address mistakes intelligibly. A single mistake or even a series of consequential mistakes may not always convince the judge the employee’s dismissal for cause is a necessary or proportional response. The employer’s reaction to the error may sway the judge in one direction or another. Therefore, where discipline is appropriate, seek proper counsel to ensure incidents of misconduct can be relied upon where the need arises.
Keep proper records. Employee misconduct is not considered in isolation. The results in this case were influenced by McGachie’s employment history and, doubtless, the earlier mistakes she had also made.
For more information see:
• McGachie v. Victoria Immigrant & Refugee Centre Society, 2007 CarswellBC 184 (B.C. S.C.).
Daniel A. Lublin is a Toronto employment lawyer specializing in the law of discipline and dismissal. He can be reached at [email protected] or www.toronto-employmentlawyer.com.
From the Archives
The case of McGachie v. Victoria Immigrant & Refugee Society was also covered in the Jan. 31, 2007 issue of Canadian Employment Law Today, appearing in You Make the Call. Did you get the decision right?
To view the article, simply click on Advanced Search and enter article #1194.
