Reference no: EM133046583

Greg had worked for two years as a games supervisor at a casino. His job was to monitor the dealers. He enjoyed his job and he joked around with his boss, Michael, all the time. One day Michael saw Greg spending a lot of time with one dealer who had nobody at her table. Michael told Greg to do his job and keep his eyes on all his tables. On hearing this, Greg started to make loud kissing sounds and suggested that Michael was "sucking up" to management. He also started making very crude gestures. Michael asked him to stop, but Greg continued with the kissing sounds and the hand gestures. Raising his voice, Michael told Greg to "cut it out." Greg told Michael not to be "such a horse's ass" as he was "only joking around." He then smiled at the dealer and walked away. The entire incident was witnessed by a security guard and several customers at nearby card tables. Michael was embarrassed and very angry. The incident was not the first time other managers had commented to Greg that he should "act more professionally". It was, however, the first time he had acted out in such an insolent manner with Michael. A day later, Greg was brought into the office and terminated for just cause, with no pay in lieu of notice. Greg sued for wrongful dismissal. In court he denied making the crude gestures, saying he only made kissing sounds and it was all part of his ongoing banter with Michael.

Did the employer have just cause under the common law to dismiss Greg? What are the factors in this case which would mitigate either in favor of, or against, a finding of a just cause?

-What is the legal issue?

-What is the legal test to be applied?

-How should the legal test be applied to the facts presented?

-What is the most probable legal resolution of the case, having regard to the legal test, and its application to the facts presented? Please apply to the rule in British Columbia, Canada