From Chapter 6 Cases for Discussion #3, page 193.

credit Case Su Paper Products Ltd.30 and Misuse of Computer Justifies Termination egal Gregory Backman (Plaintiff/Appellant), Maritime Paper dealt products ( Defendant/Respondent) in this action brought so could not use it to justify the termination now. The Ct is court rejected that argument. If an employer ignores juch fore the Court of Queen s Bench Of New Brunswick and inappropriate behaviour leading the employee to believe appealed to the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick. ased it did not matter or was not considered important Maritime Paper Products hired Gregory Backman enough to take action, it cannot use the behaviour later the shortly after graduation, and he worked there for 14 years before being terminated by the employer. He had received different. to justify disciplinary action. But here the situation was on- ra- regular raises and a promotion despite the offending con- The actions were not tolerated or condoned, and the duct that eventually led to his dismissal. When he was es hired he was informed of the company policy against mis- warnings were issued. Even if the actions were condoned use of company computers and viewing offensive material that tolerance would be based on the assumption of good conduct to follow. Here there were recurring instances of over the internet. In 2002 after an audit it was determined inappropriate conduct, and each time the prior conduct that he had viewed pornography using company comput- would be "added to the scales." The conduct of 2006 ers and was warned that it violated company policy and together with similar past behaviour with appropriate that continued behaviour could result in disciplinary warnings was a clear violation of company policy and action, including dismissal. In 2003 he engaged in similar taken together justified the dismissal. behaviour and another letter of reprimand and warning The employer made clear the company policy at the was issued against him. In 2005 he was suspected of outset and tried to work with the employee over the years. It similar inappropriate behaviour, but because of lack of gave clear indications as to inappropriate behaviour with the evidence nothing was done. warning that such conduct in the future could result in dis- Finally, in 2006 he was again found to have viewed missal. Managment even tried to determine if the employee pornographic material using company computers and his needed help to overcome his problem. The employer esca- employment was terminated for cause. He sued for lated the response to the problem, giving the employee suf- wrongful dismissal and lost. He then appealed to the ficient warnings and time to correct the conduct. By the Court of Appeal where he again failed, the court finding time of the dismissal, it was clear that the employer had that there was just cause for his dismissal. The only seri- tried to work with the employee and given him every chance ous argument in his favour was that the company had to correct the behaviour. This shows a good managerial condoned his behaviour by doing nothing about it and approach to this kind of disciplinary matter