“Time theft” describes situations where an employee is paid for time they knowingly misrepresent as having been worked. Time theft may take many different forms. It could include longer-than-scheduled breaks, misrepresenting or altering records (such as timecards), or completing personal matters on paid company time. It received renewed attention during the pandemic as more employees worked remotely.
It is not uncommon for an individual to work a second job – or to take on a “side hustle” – to supplement their income. Most employers will tolerate such activities where they are non-competitive in nature, carried on outside of working hours, and do not interfere with the individual’s performance of their duties.
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its ruling in Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited. This decision deals primarily with the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial ruling that his former employer had cause to terminate his employment, and he thus had no severance entitlement.
As we have written in an earlier article, a relatively common question employment lawyers receive (from both employees and employers) is whether it is lawful to secretly record conversations at work. Individuals may be motivated to take this step for a number of reasons, such as trying to capture evidence of misconduct, or to safeguard against allegations arising from a contentious meeting.
Last month, The Advocates' Quarterly published an article by Paul Willetts entitled "Tagg Industries v. Rieder: Is Storing Pornography on a Work-Issued Laptop Cause for Dismissal". The article looks at some of the lessons for employers coming from this case when asserting cause for dismissal. In particular, employers should ensure that: the misconduct relied upon for cause dismissal reflects an irreparable breach of trust; they can prove their assertion of cause (i.e. lead concrete evidence); the reasons for cause are communicated to the employee in a clear and contemporaneous fashion.
Generally speaking, employers have the right to dismiss employees that fail to report to work sober, and perform their duties in a safe manner, particularly where these requirements have been clearly communicated through written policy.
Tagg Industries v. Rieder serves as a useful reminder of the importance of proving (and communicating to employees) a termination for cause, as well as the high threshold that employers must meet in such circumstances.
