Was it insubordination or valid criticisms against the employer?
The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently dealt with a worker’s claim that she was “wrongfully dismissed” after her employer’s HR head, and manager “took issue with the tone and content” of an email she sent.
After examining the email, the court had to decide whether the worker’s conduct was insubordination and if it deserved summary dismissal. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that the worker was being “so testy” and mismanaged an incident with its “largest client.”
In April 2022, Kavita Lefebvre was hired by Gisborne Holdings Ltd under a fixed-term contract to replace an employee on parental leave. On behalf of Gisborne, Maegan Teunissen, the worker's manager, offered the position of departmental administrator.
According to records, the employer "provided some training," however, Lefebvre was "not adequately trained for all of the tasks assigned to her." Lefebvre also "struggled to keep up with the workload."
Around June 2022, during a telephone call between Lefebvre and a representative of Gisborne’s "largest client," the latter "became upset when she learned that Lefebvre had not scheduled a service appointment as expected."
When Lefebvre said she would have to speak to Teunissen to find a solution to the scheduling issue, Lefebvre’s conversation with the client "became heated," with both parties raising their voices.
Lefebvre called Teunissen immediately after her discussion with the client to report the incident and to seek instructions. Teunissen was offsite and had poor telephone reception.
The call was dropped midway through the discussion. Teunissen reportedly "did not tell Gibson or HR that Lefebvre reported the incident to her right away."
Shortly after the phone call with Lefebvre, Teunissen sent an email to the client, copied to Lefebvre, saying that Gisborne "would work through the scheduling issue and make things happen."
Lefebvre sent an email in response, agreeing with Teunissen’s email and apologizing to the client for being "so testy."
Soon after, Lefebvre was called into a meeting with Teunissen and Gibson. Teunissen said that she had met with the client to discuss "Lefebvre’s communication with the client. " The parties also discussed an action plan where Lefebvre would take accountability and "smooth things over" with the client.
They also discussed Lefebvre’s co-worker's "concerns with her communication style." They also decided "to meet weekly to develop their work relationship and build communication between them."
Later that same day, Gibson sent an email summarizing the topics and the action plan discussed during their meeting.
In July 2022, Lefebvre sent an email to Gibson in response to his email about the meeting with HR and her manager. The employer said that the email “constituted just cause for her dismissal.”
Lefebvre acknowledged that she was “testy” during her conversation with the client but said that Teunissen “had chosen to accept the client’s version of events without doing due diligence to discover Lefebvre’s account.”
Lefebvre said that “for an event that Teunissen deems of such significance, there was a complete lack of timeliness in discussing it with” her.
Among other remarks, Lefebvre described Teunissen’s recollection of the events and her comment that the latter “had received complaints from the client during a meeting with the client’s senior management” was “at best, a deliberate misdirection.”
She also said that “it was ‘patently unfair and borderline untrue’ to imply that Gisborne’s problems with the client were created by her.”
When HR and Gibson shared the email with Teunissen, the latter was “upset and offended”. She described the email as “borderline insubordinate” and felt that she was “being called a liar who had fabricated complaints.”
Both parties said they “were shocked by the content and tone of the email,” adding that “they felt that the email was ‘a complete reversal from the accountability’ [that] Lefebvre had shown during their meeting.”
The employer argued that the email “read in context” justified termination of Lefebvre’s employment. In its decision, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of “just cause.”
It said that it’s defined as “employee behaviour that, viewed in all the circumstances, is seriously incompatible with the employee’s duties, conduct which goes to the root of the contract and fundamentally strikes at the employment relationship.”
The court said that “summary dismissal was not a proportionate response to the email, which did not rise to the level of insubordination.”
“The email was direct and strongly worded, but it was not rude or unprofessional,” the court said.
“Lefebvre appropriately addressed her concerns about Teunissen exclusively to Gibson. [She] did not share her concerns with anyone other than Gibson nor did she undermine Teunissen’s authority with other employees.”
“Teunissen may have been offended by Lefebvre’s email, but progressive discipline, rather than summary termination, would have been a reasonable response,” it added.
Thus, the court ruled that the worker was wrongfully dismissed. It then ordered the employer to pay her damages amounting to $81,100, plus litigation costs.
