The Nova Scotia Labour Board has upheld the termination of a Sobeys Capital Incorporated employee for just cause, ruling that the employee engaged in wilful misconduct, disobedience, and neglect of duty under the Labour Standards Code.
The board found that T.F., a part-time night shift shelf stocker at a Halifax Sobeys location, violated the company’s Respectful Workplace Policy on multiple occasions, culminating in a final incident that constituted sexual harassment.
T.F. had been employed at Sobeys for 13 years, meaning his termination was subject to Sections 71 and 72 of the Labour Standards Code, which provide protections against dismissal without just cause for employees with at least ten years of service. However, the board concluded that Sobeys had met the burden of proof in establishing just cause and that T.F. was not entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice.
Progressive discipline and prior violations
The decision detailed Sobeys’ progressive discipline process, noting that T.F. had received two prior disciplinary warnings within six months before his termination.
First incident (October 2023): T.F. was issued a written warning after submitting an internal complaint alleging misconduct by his night manager and other colleagues. Sobeys investigated and found the allegations unsubstantiated. The company also determined that T.F.’s communication with HR contained unprofessional, disrespectful, and discriminatory language.
Second incident (October 2023): Shortly after the first warning, T.F. filed another complaint against the same manager, again alleging mistreatment. Sobeys conducted an investigation, including reviewing CCTV footage and interviewing witnesses, and found no evidence to support the claims. Instead, the company determined that T.F.’s behaviour constituted another violation of the Respectful Workplace Policy and issued a final warning. The letter explicitly stated that any further infractions would result in termination.
Final incident and termination
The final incident occurred in March 2024 during an icebreaker activity introducing new leadership to staff. In a group setting that included employees who were less familiar with him, T.F. made a statement about his sexual preferences, saying, “I love to have sex with Asian women.”
T.F. later argued that he had actually said, “I love to have sex with my Asian women,” referring to specific individuals he was in relationships with. He submitted evidence of photographs in his locker of women he identified as his partners. However, the board rejected his argument, finding that the statement met the definition of sexual harassment under Sobeys’ Respectful Workplace Policy.
Following an internal investigation, Sobeys determined that T.F.’s conduct violated its workplace policies, specifically its prohibition on harassment and sexual harassment. Given his disciplinary history, the company terminated his employment for cause. Attempts to speak with him directly were unsuccessful, and the termination was communicated via a registered letter.
Labour board’s findings
The board upheld Sobeys’ decision, concluding that the company had followed appropriate disciplinary procedures, provided T.F. with clear warnings, and had just cause to terminate his employment. It found that:
- T.F. had received extensive training on Sobeys’ Respectful Workplace Policy and was aware of its terms.
- The statement he made at the icebreaker was reasonably likely to cause offence or humiliation, meeting the definition of sexual harassment under both Sobeys’ policy and the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act.
- His conduct was incompatible with his continued employment at Sobeys, particularly in light of the prior disciplinary actions and his lack of contrition.
- The termination met the just cause threshold under Section 71 of the Labour Standards Code.
Furthermore, the board determined that T.F. engaged in “wilful misconduct, disobedience and neglect of duty” under Section 72 of the Code. This finding disqualified him from receiving statutory notice or pay in lieu of notice.
T.F. had argued that his statement was truthful and that he was merely answering a question about his hobbies. He also contended that because Sobeys sells adult magazines and personal care products, it should not be able to prohibit sexual comments from employees. The board rejected these arguments, emphasizing that workplace policies exist to ensure respectful and professional conduct among employees.
Additionally, the board dismissed T.F.’s claim that Sobeys had altered disciplinary records and his assertion that the HR department’s handling of his complaints justified his reinstatement or financial compensation. He had sought $250,000 in damages, a written apology, and the termination of Sobeys’ HR manager — all of which were denied.
Conclusion
The board ruled that Sobeys had just cause to terminate T.F.’s employment and that his conduct met the statutory threshold for wilful misconduct under the Labour Standards Code. As a result, the complaint was dismissed, and T.F. was not entitled to any compensation.
For more information, see Fenerty v Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2025 NSLB 30 (CanLII).
