In the recent decision of Basic v. Solid Rock Steel Fabricating Co. Ltd., 2025 BCSC 287, the British Columbia Supreme Court sided with the employer finding that there was just cause to dismiss Mr. Basic after more than 20 years of employment, after Mr. Basic committed serious acts of time theft and insubordination.

‍

Facts

Mr. Basic was employed by Solid Rock Steel Fabricating Co. Ltd. (“Solid Rock”) for more than 20 years. At the time of Mr. Basic’s dismissal, he was employed as a Project Manager and was 57 years old.

‍

Mr. Basic originally joined Solid Rock in 1992 as a Draftsman but quit his employment in 2000 to take up work with a competitor. Four years later, after being laid off from his then employer, Mr. Basic rejoined Solid Rock.

‍

At the time Mr. Basic rejoined in 2004, it became a material term of Mr. Basic’s employment with Solid Rock that he was required to work 1,864 hours annually, and to keep track of his hours worked despite being a salaried employee. It was understood that this requirement to track hours was in order to reconcile Mr. Basic’s hours on an annual basis to ensure that any additional hours over and above what his salary otherwise covered would result in additional compensation to Mr. Basic either by way of wages, additional time off or gift cards. As testified by Mr. Basic, the extra hours reporting policy was an “honour policy” (i.e. Solid Rock expected, and trusted, Mr. Basic to honestly report his hours worked). At trial, none of the reconciliations disclosed that Mr. Basic had been in the practice of recording his unpaid coffee breaks as extra hours.

‍

While neither Mr. Basic nor Solid Rock’s owner, Peter Steunenberg, testified whether paid lunches or coffee breaks were discussed at the time of Mr. Basic’s hiring, Mr. Steunenberg testified that Solid Rock never provided paid coffee or lunch breaks to its office staff. On this basis, Justice Giaschi found that paid breaks were not a term of Mr. Basic’s employment. This finding will become important later.

‍

In 2015, Mr. Basic and Solid Rock entered into a written contract of employment (the “2015 Agreement”). The 2015 Agreement contained, among others, a term relating to the expected minimum hours Mr. Basic was to work and a provision seeking to set out Mr. Basic’s entitlements in the event of a dismissal. In 2018, Solid Rock attempted to have Mr. Basic sign a new employment agreement but, despite threats of termination, Mr. Basic refused to sign. Solid Rock did not proceed with terminating Mr. Basic and instead continued the working relationship.

‍

In 2022, Solid Rock had a performance review meeting with Mr. Basic as part of newly implemented company procedures. In this meeting, Solid Rock brought up with Mr. Basic what it viewed as a discrepancy of 30 minutes per day in Mr. Basic’s time reports. Mr. Basic testified that he advised Solid Rock that this was for his two coffee breaks per day which he did not take. Solid Rock testified that they told Mr. Basic he was not entitled to paid coffee breaks and that he was to stop including these on his time reconciliations. Mr. Basic argued that the removal of counting his paid coffee breaks was a change to the terms of his employment, which the Court rejected.

‍

In October 2023, Mr. Basic contacted his General Manager, Jose Antonio Hernandez, to advise that he had approximately two weeks of vacation left and would be booking his Christmas holidays soon. Mr. Basic was subsequently approved for his two weeks of holidays from December 4 – 15, 2023.

‍

One month later, Mr. Basic emailed Mr. Hernandez again, this time attaching his calculation of extra hours for 2023. Mr. Basic went on to say, not request, that he would be coming in for less than five hours the following day, but then would be off for the remainder of the year. Mr. Basic did not have prior approval for this arrangement, nor had he mentioned it to Solid Rock prior to his proposed final day. Notably, Mr. Basic’s calculation of his additional hours continued to include the 30 minutes per day for coffee breaks which he was already warned to remove.

‍

Mr. Hernandez responded advising that Solid Rock did not, and could not, approve the additional time that Mr. Basic requested. He further confirmed that the additional hours which Mr. Basic claimed would be verified, reminding him that lunches were unpaid.

‍

The parties had differing recollections of the meeting that ensued the following day, but what could be agreed upon is describing it as “heated”. Mr. Basic advised Mr. Hernandez that he did not wish to be paid out for the extra time due to tax reasons. Mr. Hernandez advised Mr. Basic that, because of the last-minute nature of his request, Solid Rock could not approve the extra requested time off and that his extra hours would be paid out. Mr. Hernandez testified that Mr. Basic said he was “going to take the time off whether it was approved or not” before leaving the meeting. Following a further email from Mr. Basic that evening reiterating that he wished to take the time off rather than be paid out, Mr. Hernandez advised Mr. Basic that Solid Rock did not agree with his comments but if he was adamant in taking the time off, they would expect him in the New Year.

‍

While Mr. Basic was away in December 2023, Mr. Hernandez attempted to verify Mr. Basic’s extra hours for 2023. He did so by using security camera footage to determine when Mr. Basic arrived at work, took lunch, and left work each day. While the security camera footage only covered October 2023 onwards, Mr. Hernandez was able to rather quickly confirm that rather than have worked additional hours during this period, Mr. Basic actually owed Solid Rock nearly 30 hours for time which he claimed to have worked but did not.

‍

When Mr. Basic returned on January 2, 2024, Solid Rock terminated his employment. While Solid Rock advised Mr. Basic that he was being terminated for just cause, on account of theft, dishonesty and “gross insubordination”, Mr. Basic was provided with a gratuitous lump sum payment by Solid Rock in any event. However, Solid Rock made clear to Mr. Basic of the hours which it alleged Mr. Basic owed Solid Rock, for being paid for time that was not actually worked and the seriousness of his actions.

Following his dismissal, Mr. Basic commenced an action for wrongful dismissal, alleging that Solid Rock did not have just cause for his dismissal and that he was subsequently owed damages as a result.

‍

The Court Decision

Overall, the Court found Mr. Basic to be far less credible in his recollection of the events, including key conversations surrounding the coffee breaks, which was detrimental to Mr. Basic.

‍

The Court found that it was a fact that Mr. Basic’s employment never included that he was entitled to 30 minutes of paid breaks per day, nor that he could record these as working time on his reconciliations. The Court further found that, even if Mr. Basic had any doubt of either of these terms, that doubt would have been absolved during the 2022 performance review meeting.

‍

Turning to the allegations of cause levelled against Mr. Basic, the Court had “little difficulty” determining that Solid Rock had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Basic engaged in dishonest conduct, namely time theft. The Court further found that Mr. Basic’s conduct was deliberately deceitful and dishonest.

‍

Looking at whether Mr. Basic’s conduct warranted immediate summary dismissal, the Court noted “several factors” as being particularly significant, which included:

‍

• Solid Rock’s practice of compensating employees for extra hours was “unique” and a “significant perk” of employment;
  ‍
• The recording of extra hours worked was based on an “honour system”, which was admitted by Mr. Basic. Solid Rock trusted its employees to accurately record and submit their hours; and
  ‍
• Mr. Basic was expressly told in the 2022 performance review meeting that he was to stop recording the 30 minutes per day as time worked for coffee breaks not taken.

‍

The Court had no trouble in finding that Mr. Basic’s conduct was deliberate, flagrant, serious and not only dishonest, but also fraudulent. Any arguments of condonation or lack of warnings was swiftly dismissed by the Court.

‍

Looking at whether Mr. Basic’s conduct in disobeying the direction regarding recording coffee breaks and taking the additional time off in December 2023 was insubordinate, the Court was quick to agree with Solid Rock’s arguments. The Court noted that Mr. Basic was “clearly insubordinate” and that his insubordination was wilful, flagrant grave, and serious.

‍

In closing, the Court agreed that Mr. Basic’s (largely) unblemished tenure with Solid Rock was not enough, and that his actions were sufficiently serious to warrant an immediately dismissal for just cause. As a result, Mr. Basic’s action was dismissed.

‍

Takeaways

This case is part of a trending topic in the employment law community – time theft. As an employer, it is important to take away from this decision that having clear policies regarding employee hours, or workplace policies in general for that matter, can be critically important in addressing employee-related issues later on. On this same note, any potential performance issues should be swiftly addressed as they arise. While just cause is still an extremely high bar for employers to reach, it is not impossible if approached properly. Contacting an employment lawyer as soon as possible can be key to ensure this threshold can be met.

‍

If an employer jumps the gun and claims just cause where no such cause may exist at law – this can be a costly lesson for employers. Making allegations of just cause to deprive an employee of even their minimum entitlements under the British Columbia Employment Standards Act, where no such serious conduct exists, could lead to an award of punitive damages against the employer.

‍

As an employee, this tells a cautious tale of ensuring policies are clearly articulated and followed. While there has been no cost determination on this decision yet, Mr. Basic could very well be on the hook for not only his own legal fees for this unsuccessful trial, but potentially Solid Rock’s legal fees after having his action dismissed.

‍