The B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal has upheld a determination that Uniqlo Canada had just cause to terminate a store manager for dishonesty related to an overnight stay at a retail location.
The decision dismissed the appeal of B.K.Z.N., a manager who was fired after Uniqlo concluded she had misrepresented the purpose of staying overnight at the store and was dishonest during a subsequent internal investigation. The tribunal found no evidence of bias or legal error in the Director of Employment Standards’ original ruling and determined that new evidence submitted by the appellant did not meet the threshold for consideration.
“There is no reasonable prospect that the appeal will succeed,” the tribunal stated, confirming the finding that B.K.Z.N.’s actions were “inconsistent with continued employment” and had damaged the trust essential to the employment relationship.
Background to the dismissal
According to the evidence presented, B.K.Z.N. had obtained prior approval from her regional manager to work overnight at the store to carry out a planned layout change. However, she later acknowledged that not enough employees were present to complete the task. Despite this, she stayed overnight with two employees, citing safety concerns and a lack of available transportation as the reasons for remaining at the store.
Uniqlo conducted a human resources investigation and concluded that B.K.Z.N. had not been truthful about her motives. The employer believed she stayed overnight to secure early access to a limited edition shoe release scheduled in the shopping mall the following morning.
The Director found Uniqlo’s evidence more credible than that of the employee, concluding that B.K.Z.N. had lied both to her regional manager and during the internal investigation.
“I find that Ms. Nguyen stayed overnight at the store for a reason other than a valid business purpose,” the Director wrote in the original decision. “I find that she misled [the regional manager] as to the nature of her request in order to gain authorization to stay overnight. I find that she lied during Uniqlo’s internal investigation.”
The Director concluded that these actions breached the trust necessary for continued employment and that Uniqlo had just cause to terminate.
Allegations of bias dismissed
B.K.Z.N. alleged the Director had been biased in their assessment of the evidence and had failed to consider her safety concerns and applicable human rights principles. However, the tribunal found no support for these claims.
“An allegation of bias must be supported in evidence,” the tribunal stated, referencing a prior case, Salvador Gomez-Borja, 2025 BCEST 5. It found the Director had appropriately assessed the credibility of both parties and made reasonable conclusions based on the evidence.
The tribunal also rejected the appellant’s assertion that safety concerns justified the overnight stay. It quoted the Director’s skepticism that employees would choose to sleep in a store simply because their work plan changed:
“I am extremely dubious that the two employees, upon realizing that their assigned task for the night could not be completed as planned, would choose to spend the night sleeping at a store rather than in their own beds.”
The Director also questioned the claim that taxis or rideshares were unavailable, pointing to inconsistencies in the timeline of events and the lack of supporting evidence.
No error of law in just cause finding
The tribunal interpreted the appellant’s argument as challenging the Director’s conclusion that Uniqlo had just cause for dismissal. It found that the Director correctly applied the legal test, which requires proving both that misconduct occurred and that the nature of the misconduct justified termination.
The Director determined that a single instance of major misconduct—namely dishonesty—was sufficient to justify dismissal. As store manager, B.K.Z.N. was in a position of trust, and her conduct, including misleading her supervisor and lying during the investigation, undermined that trust.
“Just cause for dismissal exists where the dishonesty violates an essential condition of the employment contract, breaches the faith inherent to the work relationship, or is fundamentally or directly inconsistent with the employee’s obligations to his or her employer,” the tribunal noted, citing McKinley v. BC Tel, a 2001 Supreme Court of Canada decision.
New evidence ruled inadmissible
Though the appellant did not formally claim that new evidence warranted a reconsideration, she submitted credit card statements and a text message excerpt to support her appeal. The tribunal applied a four-part test to assess the admissibility of this new evidence, as outlined in Davies et al. (Merilus Technologies Inc.).
The credit card statements failed the first part of the test, as they could have been presented during the original investigation with due diligence. The text message failed the fourth part, as it lacked identifying information and a date, rendering it of “low probative value.”
As a result, the tribunal ruled the evidence inadmissible.
No breach of natural justice
Finally, the tribunal concluded that the Director had followed proper procedures and that the appellant had the opportunity to present her case and respond to the findings. An unfavourable outcome, the tribunal noted, does not in itself constitute a breach of procedural fairness.
“In the absence of any evidence or argument that there is any error in the Determination,” the tribunal wrote, “I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the appeal will succeed.”
The appeal was dismissed under section 114(1)(f) of the Employment Standards Act, and the original determination was confirmed.
For more information, see Bao Khanh Zoe Nguyen, 2025 BCEST 36 (CanLII).
