A B.C. employee who said she was wrongfully terminated after opening the owner’s mail won thousands in a tribunal case.
Hailey Dionne worked for Pro Line Sports, a company based in Mission, B.C. She worked in sales and customer service.
At some point, Pro Line dismissed Dionne and offered two weeks’ wages. While pleading her case to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, she claimed she was entitled to three months of wages. Pro Line claimed Dionne engaged in professional misconduct, meaning it had cause for firing Dionne without notice, but the tribunal didn’t see it that way.
Dionne started with Pro Line in April 2022. No employment contract was submitted into evidence, but the rough details suggest she was paid $24 an hour for her role in customer service.
Pro Line sent a letter to Dionne about her termination in October 2023, in which she was notified that she’d be getting two weeks of pay.
On Oct. 15, 2023, Pro Line discovered that Dionne had opened a mail package from payroll. The package was addressed to one of the owners, and the address window said the package included confidential content. The owners were out of town when Dionne opened the package.
Dionne claimed she only opened the package to obtain her pay statement. She spoke with one of the owners on Oct. 17 and informed them why she opened the email after being asked about it. She added that the other owner would often distribute the statements late. Pro Line actually admitted that sometimes wage statements would be distributed late but that Dionne would’ve only had to wait for the following Monday to receive hers.
The tribunal reflected on her decision by stating, “If an employee does not receive wage statements on time, the ESA-mandated procedure is for the employee to file a complaint, not to engage in aggressive self-help.”
What the tribunal had to determine was whether Pro Line was justified in the way it handled the termination. Despite Dionne claiming she routinely had to open mail as part of her job, it found that opening this package was a breach of trust.
The tribunal gave Dionne points for being honest, adding that her belief that she did nothing wrong was mistaken, but she wasn’t deceitful.
“Employers have a duty to give employees notice of termination. If the contract does not specify a notice period, like here, the law implies a reasonable notice period. Employers do not have to give notice if there was ‘just cause’ to fire the employee. The onus is on Pro Line, as the employer asserting just cause, to prove it,” the tribunal decision says.
“Pro Line did not explain what harm was caused by Ms. Dionne’s misconduct, or what actions it took in response, other than firing Ms. Dionne.”
The tribunal stated that Dionne’s decision “was not incompatible with continued employment. Therefore, I find Pro Line did not have just cause for dismissal.”
Due to the tribunal’s limit of $5,000 for small claims, Dionne was awarded $5,000 in damages and an additional $518.75 for tribunal fees.