In the recent case of X-Treme Packaging Services Inc. v. Savoie, 2025 ABESAB 13, the Alberta Labour Relations Board (the Board) provided an essential reminder to employers of the need to adequately document run-ins with employees if, at a later time, they wish to terminate an employee for just cause – particularly where the “final straw” is insufficiently egregious to constitute just cause for termination in and of itself.
Background
Mr. Savoie (Savoie) commenced employment with X-Treme Packaging Services Inc. (X-Treme Packaging) in October 2022. He was terminated on February 21, 2024, allegedly for cause.
While Savoie had maintained average work product and had a good relationship with his production manager during his tenure, Savoie had a few incidents, including not wearing required personal protective equipment and not having his machine turned on at the expected time at the start of the day. Most of these incidents were not formally documented by X-Treme Packaging, as they preferred to use “verbal coaching” because, in their view, “if they documented every instance of wrongdoing, it would be debilitating to the employer/employee relationship.”
Savoie did receive one written warning for yelling at a production supervisor in January of 2024 – just one month prior to his termination. However, there was no indication on this written warning what would happen if Savoie’s behaviour did not improve. Following the written warning, Savoie’s performance and behaviour was initially satisfactory, however, shortly thereafter, his attitude changed, and management noted that he was displaying increasingly “aggressive and/or temperamental behaviour.”
Things came to a head on February 21, 2024, when Savoie was late turning on his machine in the morning. When his supervisor inquired about this, Savoie expressed frustration that he did not have the supplies he needed for his machine. A meeting was subsequently arranged between Savoie, his supervisors and his manager. Savoie was told that the way he had spoken to his supervisor was unacceptable and was informed about the expectations involved in his role. Throughout the meeting, Savoie remained unreceptive to what his employer had to say, and management claimed that Savoie threatened to vastly lower his quality of work if he did not receive a raise. Savoie denied this, claiming that he stated that, since he was not given the supplies needed to do his job, why should he give 100% effort.
Savoie was terminated for insubordination following this meeting, but the termination letter also alleged that Savoie had failed to adhere to directives, engaged in menacing and intimidating behaviour, incited discord and displayed substandard workmanship. Despite having never informed Savoie that his employment was at risk, X-Treme Packaging asserted just cause for termination based on the series of issues it had with Savoie, culminating in the events that transpired on the date he was terminated.
The Board’s analysis
The Board determined that X-Treme Packaging had not satisfied either of the two routes available for establishing just cause for Savoie’s termination.
First, there was insufficient evidence that, leading up to Savoie’s dismissal, there had been real progressive discipline with a clear warning that his job was in jeopardy absent improvement to his performance. The Board flagged that Savoie had received only one written warning for disrespectful conduct prior to his termination which, notably, lacked any indication that his job would be in jeopardy if he continued to engage in the identified misconduct. The Board indicated that X-Treme Packaging could not rely on its informal observations and general discussions to later support a claim that there was just cause for immediate dismissal, nor could it assert a culminating incident without having clearly disclosed that unacceptable behaviours were building up and that Savoie’s job security was uncertain by extension.
Second, Savoie’s conduct was not sufficiently egregious to repudiate the employment contract and warrant immediate dismissal. The Board accepted that Savoie said something to the effect that his quality or effort would be lowered going forward, but neither this statement nor the interaction as a whole were sufficiently egregious to qualify as just cause for dismissal. Savoie’s remarks were a “heat of the moment” response during a “charged conversation,” and there was no evidence that Savoie had intentionally reduced his work quality in the past, such that there was no legitimacy to Savoie’s purported threat. Savoie was terminated almost immediately following this incident and was not granted any time to collect his emotions. X-Treme Packaging had not taken time to conduct an adequate, objective assessment of Savoie’s behaviour and whether it constituted just cause for termination.
With these findings made, the Board upheld the Employment Standards Officer’s order that directed X-Treme Packaging to pay Savoie one week’s wages in lieu of notice of termination.
Takeaways for employers
Employers should ensure that they diligently document instances of employee misconduct, given that these incidents may later be needed to support claims of just cause for termination. As part of this process, employers should be clear about what they expect of employees going forward by way of improvement and, if applicable, state that their job may be in jeopardy if such improvement is not seen. Employers should remember that not every heated exchange between employers and employees will qualify as just cause for determination in and of itself, and, therefore, it is important to document all prior instances of misconduct to allow cumulative cause to be argued.
For more information, please reach out to the authors, Jennifer A. Thompson and Carly Kist.
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of our Student-At-Law, Lucas Paniak, in preparing this update.
