The employer had not authorized the absence due to imprisonment

Release date: January 1st, 2016

An operator assistant challenged his dismissal following his imprisonment. The collective agreement contains a clause calling for loss of seniority and employment when an employee is absent for more that 3 consecutive days without authorization or valid reason. In the case at hand, the employee was absent for 5 consecutive days and did not ask his employer for a leave of absence, mandating his attorney to notify the employer regarding his absence and to request a confirmation of employment. According to the arbitrator, even considering that the notice given by the employer’s attorney could be deemed an implicit request for a leave of absence, the employer could have turned it down since imprisonment does not constitute a valid reason for absence. In addition, in the absence of substantial evidence of discrimination or pretext to terminate the employee’s employment, the union’s contention that the dismissal was based on the nature of the charges against the employee and their effect on the employer’s reputation cannot be supported. The dismissal is upheld.

Unifor and Ipex Inc. v. Ipex Management Inc. DTE 2015T-219, 2015 QCTA 58, Denis Gagnon Esq.


From bulletin Gestion Plus
To suscribe, click here!

Back to the list
To the exclusive service of employers

To the exclusive service of employers, Le Corre offers training workshops and publications on subjects solely pertaining to labour law. Both these tools help managers and human resources professionals to deal more effectively with the daily legal framework of their businesses.

Laval

450 973-4020

Toll free

1 877 218-4020

Fax

450 973-4010
By email