In each instance, the laying of criminal charge alone is not merely a cause (dismissal without notice). The labour lawyer Toronto must demonstrate that there is some link between the charge & the employer to summarily reject a worker which charged with criminal offense. The person must demonstrate this in this respect:
- Employee behaviour is detrimental to the reputation or product of the employer ;
- The behaviour of the worker makes it impossible for the worker to fulfill his responsibilities satisfactorily ;
- The behaviour of the employee leads to the other staff being refused, reluctant or unable to work with him ;
- The worker was guilty of a severe infringement of the Criminal Code, thereby harming the overall reputation of the employer & his staff ;
- The burden places difficulties in the manner employers perform their role of handling their work effectively and effectively directing their workforce.
Concerning these variables, the only cause will be simpler to maintain if the charge was linked to conduct while at the job. Recognize Murphy v. Canadian Tire Corporation of (1991), C.C.E.L. 205 (Ont. General. Div.),where the worker Ms. Murphy, allowed customers to leave store without proper merchandise payment. She was charged with fraud afterward. The tribunal ruled that, based on the reality that the supposed fraud in the course of Murphy’s job justified her termination, the employer, Canadian Tire, had made her defense of just cause.
On the other hand, if the charge is linked to off-duty behaviour, it will be harder to maintain just because of it. Consider Merritt one against Tigercat Industries, ONSC 1214 which charged a worker with a sexual attack on minors. The criminal charge was also not related to the employment of the employee Mr. Merritt of labour lawyer Toronto and didn’t involve other workers. The tribunal ruled that Tigercat, the employer, had failed to prove just cause. The tribunal argued that there was no proof of harm to Tigercat’s reputation, or prospective harm.
Simultaneously, where a criminal charge relates to off-duty behavior, but the employer has proof of damage to his company, the only cause is defensible. For example, the worker, Mr. Kelly, has been charged with possession of child pornography in Kelly Linamar Corp., 2005 CanLII 42487, The arrest was later notoriously published in the local media. The tribunal ruled that there was only cause for the employer, Linamar. The tribunal discovered that Linamar had the right to take appropriate measures to safeguard his reputation, & Mr. Kelly’s termination was just such a move.
What about the human rights of the employee?
In Ontario, because of “record of offenses,” the Human Rights Code ban discrimination in jobs. “Record of offenses” is described in s. 10 of the Human Rights Code like a crime for “(a) an offense in regard of which a pardon will given under the Criminal Records Law (Canada) & has not be revoked, or (b) an offense in respect of any provincial implementation.” Accordingly, the Human Rights Code will not apply where employees of labour lawyer Toronto are simply “charged” with a criminal act.