What is the employer’s response to an allegation that a shift worker was terminated because the other employee had no valid driver's license?

The employer has not disputed the worker’s allegation that the other employee held no valid driver’s license. However, this does not mean that the employer would have had work available on job sites if the worker had remained on the job. Furthermore, in his early submissions, the worker stated he believed the employer had hired a new employee after his employment was terminated. The employer has confirmed that there was another employee who worked some shifts after February 9, 2009, but that she worked fewer than the other worker whose hours it provided. I find it makes no business sense that the employer would have continued to employ the other worker if there was work available at a job site but he could not get to that site. Furthermore, I am not satisfied there would have been more work had the worker remained, since I find it is not likely the employer would have refused work on job sites because it had an employee that could not drive; that makes no business sense. Consistent with this, I note that some of the work listed on the employer’s spreadsheet involved work at sites (for instance replacing signs at job sites on March 31, 2009 and April 3 and 7, 2009). Therefore, by applying the test in Faryna v. Chorny, I find that a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in these circumstances and under these conditions that there was either little work available at job sites or that the employer found a way to transport the other employee to those sites.