Personalities sometimes clash in personal or working circles. Unfortunately, when personalities clash on the job, there can be repercussions for job performance, promotion prospects, and even whether an employee continues to hold a job. However, that is no reason to fire somebody.

A recent decision from the Court of Appeal of Alberta showed how serious the fallout can be for an apparent clash of personalities. Baker v Weyerhaeuser Company Limited involved the termination of a long-standing employee in circumstances the court found dubious.[1]  In a judgment released in March of 2022, the appeal court upheld the decision of a Queen’s Bench judge who had ruled at trial that the employee was wrongfully dismissed and had awarded one year of salary as damages in lieu of notice.

The Weyerhaeuser Company  is a huge American-based timber and wood products manufacturer with a Canadian subsidiary that manages about 57,000 square kilometres  of forestlands in Canada.Tyler Baker worked for the company in Ontario from early 2002 until late 2010 when he was laid off because of downsizing. He was rehired in May of 2011 as a Planer Supervisor at the company’s sawmill in Drayton Valley, Alberta. About a year later, he was moved into a Sawmill Supervisor role supervising 13 employees on the day shift and 30 on the night shift. A key part of his role as supervisor was to issue work permits for “hot work, confined space entry and fall restraint” on a regular basis.

Mr. Baker had worked for Weyerhaeuser for different sawmill managersover the course of about 15 years without incident or deficient performance reviews. In fact, his personnel file noted no safety issues or other concerns prior to late 2015. At trial, the mill’s Human Resources officer testified that Mr. Baker was easy to get along with, nobody had approached her regarding any issues before November of 2015, and she was surprised to hear when issues were raised at that time which called into question his supervisory ability. Indeed, the company’s personal performance reviews for 2014 disclosed general satisfaction with Mr. Baker’s work safety and production records. This positive performance review continued into mid-2015.

However, by mid-November of 2015, evidence suddenly indicated that something was going awry. On November 16, Mr. Baker was given a written warning  “as a result of continued deficient performance as a supervisor and overall shift results in 2015.” On November 22, a worker on Mr. Baker’s shift pulled a 600-volt breaker in error. On November 25, a machine was damaged in the log yard while on Mr. Baker’s shift. On November 30, Mr. Baker met with his immediate supervisor, Mr. Snow, to discuss the incidents of November 22 and 25. On Dec. 14, a “hot work” and small fire incident occurred during Mr. Baker’s shift. Then, on December 21, Weyerhaeuser terminated Mr. Baker’s employment.

Mr. Baker testified at trial that his work situation started to change when a man named Sean Cheeseman was transferred to Drayton Valley to become Mill Manager and thus Mr. Baker’s superior. Mr. Baker testified that there was tension early on with Mr. Cheeseman. In fact, by November 9, things appeared to be openly hostile, with Mr. Cheeseman telling Mr., Baker that leadership did not like him and that neither of the two mill crews wanted to work with him. At a follow-up meeting the next day, Mr. Baker told Mr. Cheeseman his comments were “classless.” As for Mr. Cheeseman’s assessment of the situation, that was clear in a series of internal emails to others in the company chain of command. Among other things, Mr. Cheeseman stated that most people do not wish to work Mr. Baker, that he does not accept feedback well, and t hat he was recommending termination. These acrimonious assessments and communications were occurring within the context of Mr. Baker not reporting a fire that occurred during one of his shifts and an allegation that he had improperly filled out or forged a safety document.

The trial judge weighed the totality of evidence and called into question Mr. Cheeseman’s managerial ability, finding that the actual reason for Mr. Baker’s termination was that Mr. Cheeseman was angry for not having been treated as “the boss” She regarded Mr. Cheeseman’s emails to his superiors in the company as indicative of Mr. Cheeseman’s failure to address concerns with Mr. Baker’s performance. She further found that the few steps taken in relation to Mr. Baker’s termination failed to comply with the company’s progressive discipline policy guidelines and certainly did not justify outright termination, particularly in light of an otherwise unblemished 15-year employment record.

In employment law, whether employee misconduct is such that it should constitute just cause for dismissal is a question of mixed fact and law, and the standard of review is palpable error. So, the Court of Appeal looked to whether in the circumstances, the behaviour of Mr. Baker was such that the employment relationship could not longer be maintained. In other words, was the behaviour or sequence of events so egregious that the company saw no other option than to terminate employment?

In assessing the correctness of  the trial decision, a key judicial precedent applied by the Court of Appeal was the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in McKinley v. BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 161, <https://canlii.ca/t/521q, where a three-part test for assessing the reasonableness of an employer’s decision to terminate was established: 1. the court looks first to the nature and extent of the misconduct; 2. considers the surrounding circumstances for both employer and employee; and 3. determines whether dismissal was warranted as a proportionate response.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s application of the law to the circumstances and facts of the case. It upheld the decision, agreeing in the final analysis that there was a total disproportionality between the employee’s misconduct and the blunt force of outright termination, especially in light of 15 otherwise good years of employment.

.

[1] Baker v Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, 2022 ABCA 83 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jn50n