Background info on Case Kingston (City) v Canadian Union of Public Employees. The employee, Donna Hudson, began working for the employer, the City of Kingston, in 1983. Throughout her employment, Ms. Hudson received multiple non-disciplinary and disciplinary warnings from her employer for various reasons, including arguing and shouting at her supervisor, angrily confronting a co-worker, and swearing at her co-workers. In September of 2009, the employer conducted Bill 168 training for its employees in preparation for the Bill 168 amendments. Ms. Hudson attended one of the training sessions held on September 11, 2009, during which she was informed of the concepts of harassment, verbal and physical violence, and the need to be mindful of how one's words and actions affect other people in the workplace. On July 28, 2010, two days after successfully completing a required anger management counseling course, Ms. Hudson made a verbal threat to her Union representative, John Hale, at the workplace. The threat was made after Mr. Hale requested that Ms. Hudson not talk about a friend of Mr. Hale's who was dead, to which Ms. Hudson responded by stating, "Yes, and you will be too." In accordance with Bill 168, Mr. Hale reported the threat to the employer. In response, the employer conducted a workplace investigation into the matter, interviewing Mr. Hale and Ms. Hudson. During her interview, Ms. Hudson denied threatening Mr. Hale prior to any of the investigators informing her that there was such an allegation. Additionally, Ms. Hudson did not apologize for having made the verbal threat to Mr. Hale. Following the conclusion of the workplace investigation, the employer determined that given Ms. Hudson's record of issues at the workplace, her having taken part in Bill 168 training, and having completed anger management counseling just two days prior to the day she made the threat against Mr. Hale, the appropriate disciplinary response was to terminate her employment. Ms. Hudson grieved her termination before an arbitration board.

What are the main concerns with this case? Explain.

Background info on Case Ditchburn v Landis & Gyr Powers, Ltd. 1997. Facts: D was a sales executive with 27 years of exemplary service. In 1993, employers implemented some workplace changes that required sales employees to rely more on computer skills and less on interpersonal skills. D was demoted to a less prestigious and less demanding position. D intended to resign and arranged to meet with a client during business hours to "tie up some loose ends". They had lunch, consumed several beers, and continued drinking for several hours at a strip club. Upon return to the client's place of business, D and the client had a physical altercation resulting in injuries to both. The employer dismissed D without notice. D sued for wrongful dismissal. Prior Proceedings: At trial, in determining whether the employer had just cause to dismiss D, Epstein commented that the facts of the case must be examined in light of the concept of the evolution of contractual rights and obligations inherent in a relationship contract of this nature. She suggested that when D originally joined the company, he could reasonably expect very little from the company but, after 27 years of dedicated and competent service he could reasonably expect much more from the employer. "[T]o an employee of almost 60 years of age who had devoted one half of his life to his employer; to a man who had made a significant contribution to the company; to a man who had no previous history of bad judgment exercised on the job; in a situation where the company was clearly not injured in any way - the employer had considerable obligations, even in the fact of a breach of company policy. It owes the employee more than the benefit of the doubt. In a situation as this, it owes a response of loyalty, support and then additional support if the employee provides to have a problem for which he or she requires assistance." Held: Employer dismissed D without just cause and she awarded damages in the amount of 22 months salary in lieu of reasonable notice and an additional 2 months because the employer refused to provide a reference letter. She would have given an additional $15K for mental distress. Appeal: ONCA upheld the 22 monthly notice award and the additional damages for mental distress. The judge on appeal stated that D's breach of company policy did not amount to just cause given his long and unblemished record of service and that the reasonable notice of 22 months was appropriate. The judge upheld the award of damages for mental distress on the grounds that the employer, by breaching an implied obligation under the contract to provide support such as counseling to a loyal and long-standing employee, committed an independent actionable wrong for which damages could be awarded. CA agrees that the employment relationship evolved to such a point that now we could say that the employer owed these obligations to D by the time of his dismissal. The employer had not only breached the obligation to provide reasonable notice of termination in the absence of just cause but also an implied term to support and provide assistance to a dedicated, long-term employee. Ratio: Employment contracts differ from commercial contracts in that employment contracts can have implied terms based on the relationship's purpose and history. The same employee conduct that may amount to the dismissal of the employee early in the relationship may not have the same effect as it did in this case once the relationship proves to be long term. Courts are willing to read into the employment contract an obligation on employees and employers to cooperate and support one another in the spirit of continuing the relationship. What are the main concerns with this case? Explain.

Now that you have found the main concerns of these two cases, compare and contrast them. Using their variations and their strategy with examples. Also, explain how workplace violence may or may not attribute to lawful summary dismissal. Lastly, what does Common Law in comparison to Occupational Health and Safety Act do in the case of when workplace violence occurs?