| Summary |
INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed dismissal procedurally unjustified – Respondent argued dismissal justified for “chronic and persistent” lateness and fair procedures followed – Applicant dismissed for chronic lateness after two written warnings - Applicant claimed arguable case under four heads – First, improper for respondent to bypass second written warning – Second, lateness not sufficiently serious to damage trust and confidence – Third, adequate explanations for lateness provided – Fourth, disparity of treatment – Respondent claimed collective employment agreement (”CEA”) entitled respondent to bypass second warning – Claimed applicant’s chronic lateness affected employment relations – Claimed magnitude of applicant’s lateness differed from other employees – Authority found claim just met arguable case threshold – Found applicant late 56 percent of the time during six month employment period – Found chronic lateness impacted on continuation of employment relations – Found no unfair procedure – Found applicant’s explanations inadequate – Found respondent acted in good faith – Found no evidence to support disparity claim – Applicant claimed financial hardship and no damage to relationships with co-workers put balance of convenience in their favour – Respondent claimed damages adequate because applicant dismissed on notice therefore no financial hardship suffered – Claimed applicant’s financial position predated dismissal – Claimed reinstatement would impact negatively on applicant’s relationship with co-workers and respondent’s operations – Found balance and overall justice favoured respondent – Found reinstatement would prejudice integrity of respondent’s disciplinary process – Found questionable whether applicant would change conduct if reinstated – Found applicant’s position disestablished after dismissal therefore status quo not employment with respondent – Reinstatement declined – Tanker Operator |