Fiery fracas over firing

gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by gman313 »

Anonymous123 wrote:
He may have been off duty, but he was in a "company" truck therefore representing the company.


Agreed completely!

But, I was just arguing the point that you can't say, all our employees can't do anything illegal while off. In some cases they can in the sense it can't legally affect their employee. So WalMart cannot fire a greeter because he snorts coke when he is off.

It is most definitely a disciplinable (if that's a word) offence but I don't think a JUST CAUSE termination will stick. Based on my own experiences with the courts. Not saying it is right or wrong, just reality
grumpies daughter
Board Meister
Posts: 409
Joined: Oct 14th, 2006, 6:07 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by grumpies daughter »

Hmm, I bet if the off duty Wal mart greeter gets caught snorting coke while still wearing the uniform, it might be an issue!
try to live your whole life west of the rockies
gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by gman313 »

grumpies daughter wrote:Hmm, I bet if the off duty Wal mart greeter gets caught snorting coke while still wearing the uniform, it might be an issue!


agreed - because they will likely have a policy that the uniform is only allowed for company business while on site or something along those lines
Mtn Biker
Übergod
Posts: 1118
Joined: Apr 11th, 2008, 1:22 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by Mtn Biker »

gman313 wrote:
Agreed completely!

But, I was just arguing the point that you can't say, all our employees can't do anything illegal while off. In some cases they can in the sense it can't legally affect their employee. So WalMart cannot fire a greeter because he snorts coke when he is off.

It is most definitely a disciplinable (if that's a word) offence but I don't think a JUST CAUSE termination will stick. Based on my own experiences with the courts. Not saying it is right or wrong, just reality


Sorry but this is not true. Any worker can be fired for any reason, with or without just cause, given or not given. It only becomes a matter of determining the severance. Unionized work environments have different rules and provide more protection.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 72743
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by Fancy »

Here is the fact sheet regarding just cause:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/empl ... just-cause

and for termination of employment:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/empl ... employment
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by gman313 »

Mtn Biker wrote:
gman313 wrote:
Agreed completely!

But, I was just arguing the point that you can't say, all our employees can't do anything illegal while off. In some cases they can in the sense it can't legally affect their employee. So WalMart cannot fire a greeter because he snorts coke when he is off.

It is most definitely a disciplinable (if that's a word) offence but I don't think a JUST CAUSE termination will stick. Based on my own experiences with the courts. Not saying it is right or wrong, just reality


Sorry but this is not true. Any worker can be fired for any reason, with or without just cause, given or not given. It only becomes a matter of determining the severance. Unionized work environments have different rules and provide more protection.


your right and my post was not the most clear. The only thing you cannot fire someone for is one of the Human Rights protected grounds. But simply don't give a reason and your fine

My point was simply on determining if severance was payable. Just cause: Nope, any other reason: yes.

I am simply suggesting the city didn't have just cause and I think the courts will say that. Therefore severance is payable
gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by gman313 »

Fancy wrote:Here is the fact sheet regarding just cause:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/empl ... just-cause

and for termination of employment:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/empl ... employment


common law also applies
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 72743
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by Fancy »

Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
goodswimmer
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Jul 4th, 2017, 5:10 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by goodswimmer »

Fancy wrote:Other people don't lose their jobs so I can see the lawsuit.

Yes they do!!!
And the vehicle should be impounded. That would be a huge bill for the department.

Here is the law
http://www.dui.ca/bc.php
User avatar
oneh2obabe
feistres Goruchaf y Bwrdd
Posts: 95131
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2007, 8:19 am

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by oneh2obabe »

Senior West Kelowna firefighter was wrongfully fired over driving ban: judge

“Further, if Mr. Klonteig’s conduct did not cause the career firefighters in the fire department — whose role is to be the first to respond to fire scenes involving impaired drivers — to lose confidence in him, it is difficult to conclude that members of the public at large would do so,” she said.

“I therefore conclude that Mr. Klonteig’s off-duty conduct was not incompatible with his faithful discharge of his duties or otherwise prejudicial to the interests or reputation of the district, and that his termination was without cause.”

Klonteig, who was unable to find employment as a firefighter after he was terminated, sought an order of payment of 18 months severance, net of the employment insurance he received and income he earned during that period.

But the judge found that he was instead entitled to five months’ salary provided for in his employment contract.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news ... -ban-judge
Last edited by oneh2obabe on Jan 29th, 2018, 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dance as if no one's watching, sing as if no one's listening, and live everyday as if it were your last.

Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 72743
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by Fancy »

goodswimmer wrote:Yes they do!!!http://www.dui.ca/bc.php

I know the law (you might want to actually quote it next time) - but the law doesn't mean one loses their job.

“In this case, Mr. Klonteig was not representing his employer when he engaged in the conduct that led to the suspension of his licence,” said MacNaughton. “The vehicle he was driving, although belonging to the district, was unmarked as such. There was no public knowledge of Mr. Klonteig’s administrative suspension.”

While the district might expect a senior employee in a department dealing with the protection of the public to avoid risk of public harm, Klonteig, not being the fire chief, was not the face of the department, said the judge.

No surprise here.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
Triple 6
Moderator
Posts: 21639
Joined: Jan 14th, 2005, 2:30 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by Triple 6 »

I'm not surprised.
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself." -- Josh Billings
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 72743
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by Fancy »

dogspoiler wrote:It would be interesting to know what reason the cop had to stop a clearly marked Fire Department vehicle. I doubt that it was a routine stop.

What made you think the vehicle was marked?
The vehicle he was driving, although belonging to the district, was unmarked as such.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 72743
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by Fancy »

mexi cali wrote:Pretty sure it's clearly marked unless Wayne had a "company" vehicle as well as one that was used when on the job.

Again, what made you think the vehicle was marked?

The vehicle he was driving, although belonging to the district, was unmarked as such.


Anonymous123 wrote: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.

Why if it wasn't marked?

So much for everyone's assumptions.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Anonymous123
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4347
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 4:02 pm

Re: Fiery fracas over firing

Post by Anonymous123 »

Why wouldn't he take his own vehicle then?
Be careful when you follow the masses.
Sometimes the M is silent

Return to “Central Okanagan”