Worker was sent to a store he was fired from but wasn't allowed to complete his job. New employer fired him as result

Question

This is a theoretical situation. A person had worked at a retail store. He was terminated without cause and with severance. A few years later the same person is working for a marketing company on a part time basis. On one shift the company sends him to the retail store he was terminated from. An hour after arriving, he is told by his manager (by phone) that he has to leave, and is told by the new store manager that he was trespassing and had been banned. There had been no prior discussion about being banned. The marketing company immediately terminated him and canceled his future shifts due to the single "complaint" from the store. There was no notice, explanation or severance pay.

Have any laws been broken? Does the worker have recourse against the marketing company or store? Does it make a difference if he was a part time employee or contractor? Does the worker have a right to know what the store had said about him to see if it was slander?

Answer 1

For purposes of this answer I am assuming that Bob is an employee. If Bob was a contractor then Employer could simply stop assigning him shifts. I am also assuming he has worked there more than 3 months as under BC law employees with less than 3 months service can be dismissed without cause without notice/severance. I'm also assuming that no illegal discrimination took place here**.

The short answer is this all looks legal and Bob would have difficulty fighting it.

A private business can refuse admittance to anyone for any reason. Even if Bob personally considers it unjust, they are not obliged to serve him. As it is private property, being on the premises was indeed trespassing.

This would likely be sufficient for Termination With Cause. Realistically, any action severe enough to get banned from a store would be more than enough to constitute gross misconduct. I work in retail and have only ever seen it happen for theft or aggressive behaviour. "Breaking Company Rules" is also considered Just Cause and in this case the company has a rule of "don't piss off the clients so much they complain, much less eject you".

Bob does not have a legal right to know what happened in a private conversation. It's possible the store didn't even give details beyond "Bob was barred from the premises."

*Hypothetical male characters are called Bob- that's just how it is.

**Ammend "except illegal discrimation" whenever I say "for any reason"