It is lawful to dismiss an employee who addresses customers in a rude and aggressive manner. The case stems from an appeal made by an employee, a butcher counter clerk at a supermarket, who was dismissed for just cause by his employer. The dismissal was due to the employee addressing a customer in an aggressive and vulgar manner. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment that rejected the employee's claim, determining that the conduct in question constituted a serious breach of contractual obligations, warranting dismissal under the NCLA applicable to the employment relationship. The court emphasised the limits of the legitimacy test for just cause in termination. The Court states that just cause is a general clause requiring interpretation by considering external factors. In the case at issue, for example, the supermarket employee refused to apologise to the customer and continued the discussion in increasingly heated tones. The court review cannot overrule the trial judge's assessment of the application of general clauses. The evaluation of the recurring elements that form just cause for dismissal is solely the responsibility of the judge of merit. This evaluation can only be reviewed in a higher court if the challenge to the judgment made by the judge of merit includes "an allegation of inconsistency with the accepted 'standards' that align with the values of the legal system and reflect social reality.". Consequently, the Court rejected the employee's proposed action and confirmed the validity of the dismissal.
2024 - Morri Rossetti
