What is just cause for firing? That depends.

When an employer claims they have just cause for the termination of someone’s employment, what they are really saying is that the employee did something so bad they could be let go without any kind of a severance package.

Absent a union, an employer can terminate whomever they like for any reason but has to pay if there is not just cause.

Paul was a senior mechanic with 25 years’ seniority when he was summoned to his manager’s office and told he had been seen making a sexually explicit gesture behind a female customer’s back.

Paul denied it, claiming he did not know what the manager was talking about. His manager then showed him a very poor quality video on his phone of the security video being played on a TV. Paul denied the gesture was sexual in nature and the manager was unable to find the original security footage at the time.

The manager told him if he resigned and did not force the manager to fire him, Paul’s wife would not be told about the incident. Paul was told to go home and think about what he wanted to do.

The next day he returned, refused to resign and was terminated. Paul sued for wrongful dismissal. The employer claimed there was just cause for Paul’s termination as a result of the sexual harassment and Paul’s dishonesty in denying the sexually explicit gesture. Once litigation started, the original security footage was found and it was quite clear that Paul was guilty and he admitted it.

The employer argued that by compounding the original offence with a lie — the denial — Paul had breached the duty of faithfulness and honesty he owed to the employer and could be terminated without notice.

Paul had 25 years of service with the company and his record was unblemished. There had been no disciplinary measures, notes or warnings in a quarter of a century of service. The customer never saw the gesture and no complaint was received.

The law says an isolated act of misconduct, including dishonesty, does not justify dismissal without notice unless the misconduct can be said to be so grevious, the relationship is destroyed.

Ultimately, the judge found that while Paul’s misconduct was serious, it did not strike at the very heart of the employment relationship in all the circumstances. It was of some relevance that this was a small employer with no written disciplinary policies or harassment policies.

Paul was awarded 20 months’ pay in lieu of notice, minus what he made during that period from new employment.

Had Paul been atwo or three year employee, things would likely have gone in a very different way for him in his lawsuit. A quarter century of unblemished service however, gives you some credit in the bank.

A suspension without pay would probably have been a better choice for the employer with a final warning that if it ever happened again, he was gone.

So if the question is “What is just cause?,’ the answer is ”It depends.”