Summary
The company granted the aggrieved leave, after an individual requested vacation on his behalf. The company however soon learned that the aggrieved had been convicted of assault and sentenced to ten days of hard labor during his leave. He was then informed that a hearing was needed, to which he agreed but it was delayed due to the absence of required union delegates. The following day, the company terminated the aggrieved, citing a failure to attend the meeting, and his recent conviction.
The company contended that the aggrieved’s previous incidents of misconduct, incarceration and deceptive behaviour in requesting the vacation leave constituted a breach of contract. It also contended that its Employee Manual and Disciplinary Code, formed part of his contract, and outlined circumstances for immediate termination without notice. The Union conversely argued the dismissal lacked due process, and that the Employee Manual and Disciplinary Code cited by the company was unfamiliar to the aggrieved. Instead, it contended the Company’s Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, which requires written charges 48 hours before a disciplinary hearing, should be followed.
The IDT determined the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual was the presiding document, considering it had been jointly accepted by both the company and the union. It also acknowledged the seriousness of Mr. Adlam’s conviction and deceptive conduct but emphasized the need for following due process in disciplining employees, as stipulated by both the LRIDA, and the Labour Relations Code.
Consequently, the IDT ordered the aggrieved to be reinstated with back pay for lost wages. If the aggrieved is not reinstated, the company would then pay 150 weeks of basic wages.
