Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
In the recent case of Basic v. Solid Rock Steel Fabricating Co. Ltd., 2025 BCSC 287, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a 57-year old project manager with over 20 years of service for time theft and insubordination.
Notwithstanding the fact that it had dismissed the plaintiff, Alexander Basic, for just cause, the defendant, Solid Rock Steel Fabricating Co. Ltd., gratuitously paid him eight weeks of salary pursuant to a contractual termination provision. At trial, the plaintiff argued that he had been dismissed without cause and sought damages for wrongful dismissal in excess of $200,000 plus aggravated damages of $30,000 and punitive damages of $50,000.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's action, affirming that his dismissal for cause had been warranted.
Facts
Solid Rock is a family company in the business of fabricating steel. The plaintiff was first hired by the company in 1992 and remained there until 2000 when he quit to go work for a competitor. When the plaintiff was laid off by the competitor in 2004, Solid Rock rehired him on a verbal employment contract.
The agreement between the parties required the plaintiff to work 1,864 hours each year and keep track of his hours. He had the potential to be compensated for extra hours worked. Importantly, it was not a term of the plaintiff's employment that he was entitled to paid lunch or coffee breaks.
In 2015, the plaintiff and Solid Rock entered into a written employment contract that contained clauses respecting, among other things, the plaintiff's minimum hours of work and entitlements on termination.
At a performance review meeting in May 2022, it was discovered that the plaintiff routinely recorded 30 minutes of paid time for his coffee breaks. The plaintiff was expressly instructed to stop including break times in his reported hours.
A series of events in late 2023 culminated in the plaintiff's dismissal. In late November of that year, he wrote to his supervisor to communicate that he would be taking the rest of the year off, effective the next day, on account of his accumulated extra hours. The plaintiff's supervisor denied that request multiple times but the plaintiff indicated he would be taking the time off nonetheless – whether it was approved or not.
While the plaintiff was absent from work, his supervisor reviewed surveillance footage which revealed that his reported hours for the previous two months were inflated by approximately 30 hours. On the plaintiff's return to work, his employment was terminated for just cause due to time theft and insubordination.
Solid Rock gratuitously paid the plaintiff the termination pay to which he would have been entitled under his written contract less the hours for which he had been paid but which he had not worked.
Decision
The Court found the employer's allegations of time theft and insubordination to be substantiated. With respect to the matter of time theft, it was never a term of the plaintiff's employment that he was entitled to paid coffee breaks. The plaintiff was expressly warned about that at or around the time of his May 2022 performance review but he had continued his unauthorized practice undeterred. His intentional dishonest conduct warranted his immediate dismissal. Due to the egregiousness of his misconduct, no prior warning was necessary.
Further, on the matter of insubordination, the Court agreed that the plaintiff was clearly insubordinate and his misconduct was wilful, flagrant and serious. He took time off despite the fact it was not approved and he was openly defiant of his supervisor.
That conduct struck at the very root of the employment contract and wholly undermined the employer-employee relationship.
Because Solid Rock was entitled to summarily dismiss the plaintiff from employment for dishonesty and insubordination, the deductions made from the gratuitous payment made on termination did not result in a breach of his employment contract.
Takeaways
Leaving aside insubordination, which is problematic in and of itself, time theft is a significant workplace challenge for employers, especially given today's reality of hybrid or remote work arrangements.
The Court's decision in this case underscores the importance of having clear policies respecting work hours and communicating those policies to all employees. That will be immensely helpful when trying to demonstrate just cause for summary dismissal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
