Kirby v. Motor Coach Industries Ltd., (1980) 6 Man.R.(2d) 395 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: October 27, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1980), 6 Man.R.(2d) 395 (CoCt)

Kirby v. Motor Coach Ind. Ltd. (1980), 6 Man.R.(2d) 395 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Kirby v. Motor Coach Industries Limited

Indexed As: Kirby v. Motor Coach Industries Ltd.

Manitoba County Court

Jewers, C.C.J.

October 27, 1980.

Summary:

The plaintiff, a certified engineering technician, brought an action against the defendant, a manufacturer of buses, for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff had been employed for approximately three months as a "methods supervisor", when he was dismissed. The plaintiff had successfully completed one task and had indifferent success with the second. With respect to a third project, the employer confronted the plaintiff, accusing him of abandoning the project and implied the plaintiff's conduct amounted to disobedience. The following day the plaintiff was dismissed, being told that he was not suited to the job and that the job had been reevaluated.

The Manitoba County Court allowed the plaintiff's action. The court held that the employer failed to satisfy the onus upon it that the plaintiff was discharged solely because he was unsuitable.

Labour Law - Topic 6582

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Interpretation - Discipline and dismissal of employees - The Manitoba County Court discussed the law relating to the dismissal of probationary employees - See paragraphs 15 to 21.

Master and Servant - Topic 7555

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Incompetency - The defendant employer alleged that the plaintiff had been dismissed because he was unsuitable - The Manitoba County Court held that having regard to the relatively short time of the plaintiff's employment and the fact that the plaintiff was not expected to be fully productive for one year, the employee's work record was not completely unsatisfactory - The court held that the employer failed to satisfy the onus upon it that the discharge related solely to the plaintiff's unsuitability - See paragraphs 22 to 27.

Master and Servant - Topic 8800

Practice - Evidence - Burden of proof of cause for dismissal - The Manitoba County Court held that the onus of proving that a dismissal was proper is upon the employer because he alone knows the reason for the dismissal - The court stated the employee should not have to prove that the employer did not have just cause for his actions - See paragraph 20.

Master and Servant - Topic 8062

Dismissal without cause - Damages - Assessment of damages - The Manitoba County Court referred to factors to be considered in determining the assessment of damages for unjust dismissal - See paragraph 28.

Cases Noticed:

Re Pioneer Electric (Manitoba) Ltd. v. USW Local 4297 (1970), 71 C.L.L.C. 14,071, consd. [para. 15].

Markey v. Port Weller Dry Docks Ltd. (1975), 4 O.R.(2d) 12, consd. [para. 16].

Re TRW (Canada) and Thompson Products Employees Association, 25 L.A.C.(2d) 191, consd. [para. 19].

Re United Electrical Workers Local 514 v. Westinghouse (Canada) Ltd., 24 L.A.C. 74, refd to. [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown and Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration, pp. 390-392 [para. 17]; 286 [para. 20]; 391 [paras. 20, 21].

Palmer, Collective Agreement Arbitration in Canada, p. 240 [para. 18].

Counsel:

B.D. Stewart, for the plaintiff;

T.W. Kirk, for the defendant.

This case was heard before JEWERS, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court of Winnipeg.

The judgment of JEWERS, C.C.J., was delivered on October 27, 1980: