Convergys Customer Management Inc. v. Luba et al.,
Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
Court | Court of Appeal (Manitoba) |
Judge | Philp, Monnin and Hamilton, JJ.A. |
Neutral Citation | 2005 MBCA 29 |
Citation | (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 129 (CA),2005 MBCA 29,252 DLR (4th) 457,[2005] 5 WWR 70,192 Man R (2d) 129,39 CCEL (3d) 171,252 D.L.R. (4th) 457,(2005), 192 ManR(2d) 129 (CA),192 ManR(2d) 129,192 Man.R.(2d) 129 |
Date | 07 March 2005 |
Convergys Customer v. Luba (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 129 (CA);
340 W.A.C. 129
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2005] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.014
Convergys Customer Management Inc. (employer/respondent) v. Randy Luba (employee/appellant) and The Manitoba Labour Board and The Director of Employment Standards Division (respondents)
(AI 03-30-05635: 2005 MBCA 29)
Indexed As: Convergys Customer Management Inc. v. Luba et al.
Manitoba Court of Appeal
Philp, Monnin and Hamilton, JJ.A.
March 7, 2005.
Summary:
An habitually tardy employee was dismissed without notice. Section 62(h) of the Employment Standards Code disentitled a dismissed employee to the statutory minimum notice if the employee's conduct constituted "wilful misconduct or disobedience or wilful neglect of duty". The Labour Board ruled that the employee was dismissed for "just cause" and was disentitled to pay in lieu of the statutory minimum notice. The employee appealed.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Board's finding of "just cause" for dismissal on the basis of tardiness was not the equivalent of finding that the employee was guilty of the s. 62(h) conduct disentitling him to the minimum statutory notice. The court remitted that matter to the Board to determine whether the conduct constituting "just cause" for dismissal also constituted conduct under s. 62(h) disentitling the employee to the statutory minimum notice.
Master and Servant - Topic 7560
Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Absenteeism or tardiness - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8404 ].
Master and Servant - Topic 7662
Dismissal of employees - With cause - Notice of dismissal - Entitlement to - [See Master and Servant - Topic 8404 ].
Master and Servant - Topic 8404
Employment and labour standards - Layoff or dismissal - Notice - An habitually tardy employee was dismissed without notice - Section 62(h) of the Employment Standards Code disentitled a dismissed employee to the statutory minimum notice if the employee's conduct constituted "wilful misconduct or disobedience or wilful neglect of duty" - The Labour Board ruled that the employee was dismissed for "just cause" and was disentitled to pay in lieu of the statutory minimum notice - The employee appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The Board's finding of "just cause" for dismissal on the basis of tardiness was not the equivalent of finding that the employee was guilty of the s. 62(h) conduct disentitling him to the minimum statutory notice - The court remitted that matter to the Board to determine whether the conduct constituting "just cause" for dismissal also constituted conduct under s. 62(h) disentitling the employee to the statutory minimum notice.
Cases Noticed:
McGuire v. Royal Canadian Legion (Manitoba Branch No. 1) (1985), 33 Man.R.(2d) 41 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].
Stilwell v. Audio Pictures Ltd., [1955] O.W.N. 793 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].
Park Manor Personal Care Home Inc. v. Antazo, [1992] M.L.B.D. No. 19 (Lab. Bd.), refd to. [para. 16].
College Universitaire de Saint-Bonifice, Re, [1999] M.L.B.D. No. 9 (Lab. Bd.), refd to. [para. 16].
Wal-Mart Canada Corp., Re, [2002] O.E.S.A.D. No. 219 (L.R.B.), refd to. [para. 17].
Minott v. O'Shanter Development Co. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 1; 42 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].
Rasanen v. Rosemount Instruments Ltd. (1994), 68 O.A.C. 284; 17 O.R.(3d) 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565; 12 A.R. 449, refd to. [para. 24].
Gervais v. Bobcat of Central Manitoba Ltd. et al. (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 91; 335 W.A.C. 91; 2004 MBCA 159, dist. [para. 28].
Gervais v. Bobcat of Central Manitoba Ltd. et al., [2004] M.L.B.D. No. 2 (Lab. Bd.), dist. [para. 29].
Statutes Noticed:
Employment Standards Code, S.M. 1998, c. 29; C.C.S.M., c. E-110, sect. 61, sect. 62(h), sect. 62(p) [Appendix].
Counsel:
R. Luba, on his own behalf;
T.W. Percy, for the respondent, Convergys Customer Management Inc.;
T.L. Epp, for the respondent, Manitoba Labour Board;
M.A. Webb, for the respondent, Director of Employment Standards Division.
This appeal was heard on January 20, 2005, before Philp, Monnin and Hamilton, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
On March 7, 2005, Philp, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Table of Cases
...(Gen. Div.) ..................................................................... 65 Convergys Consumer Management Inc. v. Luba (2005), 192 Man. R. (2d) 129, 39 C.C.E.L. (3d) 171, 2005 MBCA 29 ......................................... 292 Cook v. Halifax (City) School Board (1902), 35 N.S.R......
-
Termination of Employment
...of the word “wilful” in the statute establishes a narrower standard than at common law: Convergys Consumer Management Inc. v. Luba (2005), 39 C.C.E.L. (3d) 171 (Man. C.A.). 30 Example: British Columbia Employment Standards Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 113, s. 65(4)(b) [ B.C. ESA ]. 31 Ontario Te......
-
Irvine v. Gauthier (Jim) Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Ltd., 2013 MBCA 93
...(Ian) Law Corp., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 740; 2008 BCSC 1116, refd to. [para. 54]. Convergys Customer Management Inc. v. Luba et al. (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 129; 340 W.A.C. 129; 2005 MBCA 29, refd to. [para. Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362; 376 N.R. 196; 239 O.A.C. 299; 2008 SC......
-
Cummings v. Quantum Automotive Group Inc., 2017 ONSC 1785
...by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in considering very similar legislation: Convergys Customer Management Inc. v. Luba [2005] M.J. No. 51, 2005 MBCA 29, para. [75] Given the evidence that I reviewed earlier, and the findings of fact that I have made, I find that Cummings’ intentional misrepres......
-
Irvine v. Gauthier (Jim) Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Ltd., 2013 MBCA 93
...(Ian) Law Corp., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 740; 2008 BCSC 1116, refd to. [para. 54]. Convergys Customer Management Inc. v. Luba et al. (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 129; 340 W.A.C. 129; 2005 MBCA 29, refd to. [para. Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362; 376 N.R. 196; 239 O.A.C. 299; 2008 SC......
-
Cummings v. Quantum Automotive Group Inc., 2017 ONSC 1785
...by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in considering very similar legislation: Convergys Customer Management Inc. v. Luba [2005] M.J. No. 51, 2005 MBCA 29, para. [75] Given the evidence that I reviewed earlier, and the findings of fact that I have made, I find that Cummings’ intentional misrepres......
-
Carlson v. Stickles, 2006 MBCA 66
...had regard to and were guided by the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Convergys Customer Management Inc. v. Luba et al. [(2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 129], 2005 MBCA 29, [sic] [139] (' Luba '), where the court had occasion to address the scope and parameters of s. 62(h) and (p) of the ......
-
Table of Cases
...(Gen. Div.) ..................................................................... 65 Convergys Consumer Management Inc. v. Luba (2005), 192 Man. R. (2d) 129, 39 C.C.E.L. (3d) 171, 2005 MBCA 29 ......................................... 292 Cook v. Halifax (City) School Board (1902), 35 N.S.R......
-
Termination of Employment
...of the word “wilful” in the statute establishes a narrower standard than at common law: Convergys Consumer Management Inc. v. Luba (2005), 39 C.C.E.L. (3d) 171 (Man. C.A.). 30 Example: British Columbia Employment Standards Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 113, s. 65(4)(b) [ B.C. ESA ]. 31 Ontario Te......