Court determines if taking down website is 'destruction of company property'
Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice recently dealt with the case of an employee who was terminated from work for taking down a company’s website, among other factors.
Was the dismissal too harsh or a proportionate response?
The employee was an assistant buyer in the seasonal and toys department, a managerial position at Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
His role allowed him to access and edit the pricing database to change the prices of products, the units of product orders, product descriptions, and product weights. He was responsible for monitoring inventory and sales, setting prices, negotiating with vendors, and resolving accounting discrepancies. He directed the activities of inventory control specialists in his department.
After a while of working as an assistant buyer, Costco confirmed internally that the employee would move to the lawn and garden department. But before the transfer, in late 2014, the employee built a Google cloud-based website for the toys department.
The website served as an online platform allowing department members to share files easily. He developed and worked on the website during work hours, with the assistance of an inventory control specialist, who helped him with testing the site. He described the website as his “pet project,” but it was undisputed that it was Costco property.
After encouragement from co-workers, he sent an email with a link to the website to Costco’s management and expressed a desire to share the website with his department, as well as regionally and to the international division: “Take a browse and test her out.”
The employee had to take medical leaves and could not finalise the matter with the management about the website.
When he started his position at the new department, the senior staff at the toys department emailed him and asked if the employee could grant access to the website he created:
“Could you please grant us the access for the Google site you created for Toys. At the same time, would you mind changing the ownership to myself and [another colleague]? Thank you.”
According to records, when the employee saw the email, he immediately deleted the website. The employee said he was “furious” and recalled he felt “infuriated that [management] would pull this stunt.” He thought “they were asking for a revenge tactic or out of spite.”
Costco was able to restore the website, but the employee deleted the website again. The company conducted an internal IT investigation concerning its deletion and confirmed the employee was responsible.
The employee admitted that both actions were “deliberate.” His employment was then terminated.
Was there unfair dismissal?
Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice examined the contract between the parties.
Costco submits that it contained a clause that said that “all creative work, business ideas and products” that an employee designs and develops in their role as a Costco employee or related to the business of Costco are “the sole property of Costco.”
It argued that as an assistant buyer, the employee was bound by the agreement, which expressly provided that causes for termination include willful damage or destruction of company property and insubordination.
It also said that grounds include refusal to comply with direct instructions of a manager and contemptuous remarks to a manager.
Meanwhile, the employee said he was frustrated with how Costco had treated him, and he said the management was frustrated that he “was not demonstrating a positive attitude.”
Recently, Google was accused of “unjustly retaliating” against an employee after its product marketing manager claimed she was told to move to Brazil after objecting to the company’s contract with Israel.
HRD also reported on social media policies in the “switched on” age as workers getting fired over WhatsApp conversations or Facebook posts get more frequent.
The court’s decision
In this case, the court found that “wilful damage or destruction of company property and insubordination” were specifically identified in the employee agreement as causes for termination.
“Costco expected its managerial employees to act with integrity, honesty and forthrightness as required by the standards of ethics,” the decision said.
After examining the nature of the act and circumstances of both parties, the court found the employee committed misconduct that was “incompatible with the fundamental terms of his employment relationship with Costco.”
Thus, it said that summary termination was a proportional response, and the employee’s claim that Costco wrongfully dismissed him was rejected.
