“More tellingly, during its investigation, (the employer) never asked a single witness, let alone the (owners), whether they heard these words and, if so, whether they were said or directed at the (owners). “

The process of making the termination decision became a central point of the case. While the commercial director claimed that he alone made the decision to quit, the evidence suggests that the managing director may have been involved. The court held:

“(The commercial director’s) evidence was that he was to be the sole decision-maker and (the document) was badly worded on his part… (but) there were other people involved in each of the three processes (or in one of which there were three parts).”

Workgroup misconduct and reputational risk

The employer argued that the worker’s conduct posed a serious risk to its reputation, particularly given the sensitive nature of the wildfire recovery project. The commercial director testified:

“So to have a partyswearing at people, making accusations, changing those accusations, there’s a good chance they (property owners) are going to go tell their friends and people. What happened will become public.