Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
It is an interesting case to read. He basically won by arguing he was doing all of his assigned work and wasn't bothering anyone. From the tribunal:
It seems clear to me that there was some failure on the part of the grievor’s managers to manage him. While both his supervisors contended that they should not have to supervise minutely an employee at the grievor’s classification level, I believe that they have some responsibility to supervise, which they do not seem to have done in this case. I find it surprising that an employee could spend the amount of time that the grievor did on non-work-related activities for months without his supervisors noting a lack of production or engagement. The employer argued that the grievor negotiated the time - frames for the projects assigned to him and that he also refused long-term projects on the grounds that he would soon be leaving. Even so, it seems to me that the grievor’s supervisors had a responsibility to regularly review his work and production and to assess his workload, which clearly they did not do.
|
Yeah, it's a case of mismanagement, and a case demonstrating that it can't be time theft if the employee didn't have anything else to do. I am a bit surprised that the pornography wasn't given more weight, as that has to be a serious violation of several workplace policies.
Threaded Mode