Fiery fracas over firing

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

I wonder if the Chiefs vehicle actually was suspended for the full term?

[Felix]

I can’t believe the gall this guy has. Simply unbelievable that he chooses to drink and drive, gets canned and then thinks he’s entitled to six figure compensation for his absolute disregard for the law and public safety.

Get real buddy... You could have killed someone.

[Anonymous123]

To me it looks like he took the Chiefs truck because he figured that if there was a road check that they would let him through. Good for the officer that pulled him off the road. If the ruling goes in favour of the disgraced/disgraceful fire fighter, then the settlement should go to MADD.

[ochema62]

This guy wanted 18 months notice before he was fired? Ahhh........ no snowflake. Given the amount of ingested alcohol he's
lucky he did not kill anyone behind the wheel.

[artistwithaflare]

Poor guy. Now if he had been a University Professor(story in forum) he would have gotten a slap on the hand with a paid vacation!

[JayByrd]

No one is expressing sympathy for this man. People need to stop making up things to get irked about.

I can't speak on the "alternative disciplinary measures" aspect of this. I'm not sure he has a leg to stand on there but I'm no lawyer. Maybe it's simply something to argue in court and gain a little traction on.

He is arguing that his contract with his employer entitles him to 18 months notice of termination (or likely, 18 months pay in lieu of notice). If that entitlement isn't negated by the reason for his termination, then he has a case. It's not about whether his conduct makes you angry, or what people think he deserves. A contract is either binding or it isn't, which is why we have judges to decide these things and not angry mobs. If we're using "snowflake" to deride anyone who's conduct we don't like, then I'll say we have a bunch of snowflakes in this thread who think their own emotions take precedence over law. Get over yourselves.

Personally I think the termination was justified, but I expect the judge will come to know more about this case than I do. If the language of his contract still entitles him to severance, then the employer should be held to it. Same as anyone else.

[gman313]

No one is expressing sympathy for this man. People need to stop making up things to get irked about.

I can't speak on the "alternative disciplinary measures" aspect of this. I'm not sure he has a leg to stand on there but I'm no lawyer. Maybe it's simply something to argue in court and gain a little traction on.

He is arguing that his contract with his employer entitles him to 18 months notice of termination (or likely, 18 months pay in lieu of notice). If that entitlement isn't negated by the reason for his termination, then he has a case. It's not about whether his conduct makes you angry, or what people think he deserves. A contract is either binding or it isn't, which is why we have judges to decide these things and not angry mobs. If we're using "snowflake" to deride anyone who's conduct we don't like, then I'll say we have a bunch of snowflakes in this thread who think their own emotions take precedence over law. Get over yourselves.

Personally I think the termination was justified, but I expect the judge will come to know more about this case than I do. If the language of his contract still entitles him to severance, then the employer should be held to it. Same as anyone else.

Most sensible post yet. Well I agree this was a terrible thing to do I expect he will get some severance pay.

The employer will have a discipline policy. This will be a sliding scale from a verbal warning, to written warning, to suspension, to possibly longer suspension to a termination for cause. In Canada, the onus of proving just cause rests solely with the employer and it is a very high standard.

In some cases, an immediate termination on first offence is warranted. The relationship must be damaged to the point it cannot continue. An easy example of this is significant theft. If the guy walked away with 10,000 cash, no problem. It is also possible to have immediate terminations as the result of speaking very negatively about your employer.

Recent jurisprudence in Canada actually shows termination for a single drunk driving incident in an employers car may not be ground for termination. Especially in the case of a long term employee with an otherwise spotless record.

You will notice in one of the articles the HR person for the employer did not want to terminate but she was over ruled. That is very telling to me. The HR person likely consulted a labour lawyer who suggested a termination for cause may not stick.

Right or wrong, I think he will get some severance.

[GordonH]

Maybe add the wording: if caught doing or involved in an illegal act (while employed by the DoWK) any possible severance package is nul & void.

[lightspeed]

Too many wanabee HR managers and barroom lawyers.

Let's wait and see what happens.

Hopefully he has to pay all associated costs related to this nonsense.

[gman313]

Maybe add the wording: if caught doing or involved in an illegal act (while employed by the DoWK) any possible severance package is nul & void.

won't work. An employer only has the right to control off duty behavior to the point it directly and measurably negatively affects the business. For example, if he wants to snort cocaine in his house, he can. That is an illegal act but you could not fire him for it

[GordonH]

Maybe add the wording: if caught doing or involved in an illegal act (while employed by the DoWK) any possible severance package is nul & void.

won't work. An employer only has the right to control off duty behavior no district vehicles to be used for personal proposes then to the point it directly and measurably negatively affects the business. For example, if he wants to snort cocaine in his house, he can. That is an illegal act but you could not fire him for it unless it impacts his work performance, of under PC he would sent for drug rehab under DoWK dollars

Oh well, then DoWK gets screw by an idiot.

So if this person had been accident causing injury of death, does ICBC go after DoWK since the vehicle is registered to them and not to the individual.

[Mtn Biker]

won't work. An employer only has the right to control off duty behavior to the point it directly and measurably negatively affects the business. For example, if he wants to snort cocaine in his house, he can. That is an illegal act but you could not fire him for it

Actually that is not true. A person (except those belonging to a union) can be fired for any reason or activity, whether done on company time or their own, it doesn't make any difference. They don't even need to give you cause (except for unions). The only thing to settle or determine, which will vary depending on the circumstances, is the severance.

[GordonH]

won't work. An employer only has the right to control off duty behavior to the point it directly and measurably negatively affects the business. For example, if he wants to snort cocaine in his house, he can. That is an illegal act but you could not fire him for it

Actually that is not true. A person (except those belonging to a union) can be fired for any reason or activity, whether done on company time or their own, it doesn't make any difference. They don't even need to give you cause (except for unions). The only thing to settle or determine, which will vary depending on the circumstances, is the severance.

Of course Assist Fire Chief & the Fire Chief, would be considered management they would not be part of the a union.

[gman313]

won't work. An employer only has the right to control off duty behavior to the point it directly and measurably negatively affects the business. For example, if he wants to snort cocaine in his house, he can. That is an illegal act but you could not fire him for it

Actually that is not true. A person (except those belonging to a union) can be fired for any reason or activity, whether done on company time or their own, it doesn't make any difference. They don't even need to give you cause (except for unions). The only thing to settle or determine, which will vary depending on the circumstances, is the severance.

your are partially correct. Two ways of firing someone

Just Cause - no severance payable but the burden of proof is on the employer
Not Just Cause - can fire someone for any reason or not give a reason as long as it is not in violation of Human rights. In this case statutory, common law, and contracted severance can be payable.

The City obviously feels they have cause, the employee obviously feels they don't, Court will decide shortly.

[Anonymous123]

Maybe add the wording: if caught doing or involved in an illegal act (while employed by the DoWK) any possible severance package is nul & void.

won't work. An employer only has the right to control off duty behavior to the point it directly and measurably negatively affects the business. For example, if he wants to snort cocaine in his house, he can. That is an illegal act but you could not fire him for it

He may have been off duty, but he was in a "company" truck therefore representing the company.