The worker sued for wrongful dismissal, denying that he participated in anything unethical, noting that he didn’t actually receive anything from California Closets. He also argued that, even if he did, it didn’t justify termination for cause.
The worker also sought payment for unpaid commissions plus punitive and aggravated damages. According to the terms of his employment agreement, commissions were earned and staggered over three stages – 50 per cent at “firm sale,” 25 per cent at “staking,” and 25 per cent at closing. The worker argued that he was entitled to commissions for sales he began before his termination but were completed after.
The California Closets representative claimed that he never offered any incentive to the worker, saying that they only discussed an incentive program for condominiums, which the worker didn’t sell.
The court preferred the California Closets owner’s statement to Brookfield over the representative’s claim that no incentives were discussed, noting that it wasn’t credible that incentives for condominiums only were discussed and it came up organically. This evidence indicated that the worker was offered an incentive by California Closets, and he acted on this offer by initiating change orders for customers to use California Closets’ products, the court said. In addition, the worker didn’t mention to Brookfield that he had any discussions about incentive programs, said the court, noting the “relative proximity” of the worker’s meeting with the California Closets representative and the change order requests for the company’s products.
Breach of policy
Even if the worker didn’t receive any benefits prior to his dismissal, his actions created at least the appearance of a conflict of interest of which he didn’t advise management, in breach of Brookfield’s code of conduct and anti-bribery policy, said the court, adding that the worker instead became “a proponent for California Closets thereby increasing the appearance of a conflict of interest.”