Expensive Coffee – Falsifying Time Led to Employment Termination

In Basic v. Solid Rock Steel Fabricating Co. Ltd., the court upheld the employer’s termination for cause on the grounds of insubordination and time-theft. This case illustrates the severity of time-theft, an offence not even the most senior employee can get away with. It also demonstrates the importance for employers to establish structured timekeeping protocols to avoid uncertainty.

Background

This was a wrongful dismissal claim brought by Mr. Basic against his employer, Solid Rock Steel Fabricating Ltd. (the “Company”). Mr. Basic had worked for the Company for more than 20 years. He was originally employed from 1992 until 2000. In 2004, Mr. Basic had a dinner meeting with the owner of the Company and discussed the terms of him returning to work for the Company.

Mr. Steunenberg, the owner of the Company, provided evidence of a handwritten note outlining the terms of Mr. Basic’s re-employment which was present during the dinner meeting. A formal offer was made during the dinner. Of particular importance was evidence that Mr. Basic was explicitly told to “keep track of extra hours,” as any time worked beyond the stipulated 1,864 hours as set in the offer would be compensated. Both parties acknowledged that the extra hours policy was an “honour policy” – meaning that the employee was responsible for tracking and reconciling hours at the end of the year. This system was one based on trust.

Neither party testified on whether paid lunches and coffee breaks was discussed, however the Company’s evidence was that they never provided paid coffee breaks or lunch breaks for the office staff. The Company’s evidence was that the general expectation was for employees to work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a 30-minute unpaid lunch break and no paid coffee breaks.

Issue

The point of contention was the discrepancy between Mr. Basic’s time reports and the Company’s records. Mr. Basic testified that he would routinely add an additional 0.5 hours to his time sheet to account for the two 15-minute coffee breaks which he did not take. For instance, if he worked from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., he would record 8.5 hours to account for not taking his coffee breaks. The issue of coffee breaks was brought up in one of his performance reviews in May 2022, where he explained his rationale. The Company explicitly told him that paid coffee breaks were not permitted.

Between October and December 2023, Mr. Basic asked to take the remainder of his extra earned time as vacation as opposed to being paid out. The Company opposed this, given the nature of his last-minute request, and instead offered to pay him out. Mr. Basic disagreed and stated that he was going to take the time off whether it was approved or not. 

Investigation

With heightened awareness into Mr. Basic’s practice of adding 30 minutes of pay daily, the Company decided to audit his actual time at work through security camera footage during his absence.

The audit revealed that, in fact, Mr. Basic owed 28.8 hours of time to the Company because he had overclaimed for his shifts. Upon his return, the Company showed all the evidence gathered, including a spreadsheet of his working hours to highlight the 30-minute discrepancies in his daily entries. As a result, he was terminated for cause, based on allegations of time-theft and dishonesty.

The court found that Mr. Basic’s conduct was deliberate, flagrant, and serious. Mr. Basic knowingly overstated his hours, despite being expressly told not to, and took advantage of the honour system’s lack of oversight. Mr. Basic was also guilty of taunting the Company and being overtly defiant when taking time off, even when the Company expressed their inability to accommodate the request.

Key Takeaways

This case serves as a good reminder that it is preferable to have written policies about timekeeping requirements if you want to enforce those requirements.  Time theft can serve as just cause for dismissal, even for long-term employees.  However, the employer will typically need to prove the employee knew or should have known they were breaching the established requirements. 

For questions about this topic or any other workplace law matters, please reach out to Scott Marcinkow or a member of our Workplace Law team. You can also explore more insights by browsing our latest blog posts here.