Canadian Employment Law Today - sample

Angry worker's firing overturned, but he doesn't get his job back City worker acted aggressively in front of customer and didn't apologize; also made veiled threat after being dismissed BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A Calgary city worker shouldn't have been fired for his aggressive behaviour at a homeowner's resi- dence, but his actions following his dismissal made reinstatement unwork- able, an Alberta arbitrator has ruled. Andre Desantis was hired by the City of Calgary in May 2001 to be a municipal main- tenance worker and flushing truck worker for the city's water services department. His role as a flushing truck worker involved be- ing out in the field assessing and resolving drainage problems in the private homes of city residents as well as large buildings. Like all flushing truck workers, he and a partner were given daily assignments by a foreman and drove around in a city-owned vehicle. Desantis had two incidents of active dis - cipline on his record in 2014 and 2015: a two-day suspension for multiple unauthor- ized absences and a four-day suspension for another unauthorized absence. It was known that Desantis had a tendency to get upset and frustrated occasionally, but he was considered to be a good worker. On June 16, 2016, Desantis and his part - ner had a third worker with them in the truck — a trainee who was learning the ropes under the two experienced workers. e foreman, back in the office, received a call from Desantis' partner from a custom - er's residence where they were on a job. e partner reported that Desantis had exhib- ited aggressive and abusive behaviour in the customer's presence and had also moved a washing machine without disconnecting the water lines from it, stretching them to the point where they had almost split. e customer had told him and the trainee that she felt "embarrassed for them" and was worried about Desantis' well-being. e customer then came onto the phone and said she was fine but she was concerned about Desantis. She also said she wasn't worried about damage to the washing ma - chine's water lines but she would run a load of laundry just to make sure. e customer declined to make a formal statement about the incident. e trainee who was with Desantis and his partner was asked to write a formal statement, so she reported that they were at the customer's house to unplug the wa - ter service to the house. Desantis tried to move the washing machine away from the wall, but it was a tight space in which to work. e trainee said Desantis "dropped F- bombs" and groaned while trying to work, all in front of the customer. e trainee saw the water hoses were stretched and sug - gested he disconnect them, but Desantis declined. It wasn't working and Desantis, frustrated, went outside to the truck, where his partner was doing paperwork. e trainee reported that after Desan - tis left, the customer asked her if Desantis hated women. e trainee replied that she didn't think so and he was just frustrated, but she felt embarrassed and uncomfortable with Desantis' behaviour, apologizing to the customer. When Desantis returned with an auger and his partner, he banged the cus - tomer's vacuum cleaner with the auger, at which point the trainee observed the cus- tomer looked annoyed. Desantis' partner also wrote a statement and reported that when Desantis came out- side he was obviously frustrated. When he accompanied Desantis back into the house, he thought the customer looked nervous around Desantis. He said he himself be - came uncomfortable around Desantis when Desantis started pacing the hallway, upset when they still couldn't complete the un- plugging task. ey went out to the truck and the part- ner told Desantis he should go back into the house to explain things to the customer, but Desantis declined, saying "what's done is done." e partner went back and apolo - gized to the customer, and they made the call to the foreman. No explanation for actions Two weeks later, on June 29, the city held an investigation meeting with Desantis. Desantis claimed he apologized to the customer as he left the house, but nether of his co-workers heard this and the city noted that his partner had reported he had refused to go back and talk to the customer. After speaking to him and reviewing the statements of the other two workers, it was determined Desan- tis hadn't followed the city's respectful workplace policy and customer service model — which encouraged "polite, courteous, respectful behaviour in sup- port of a customer-focused organization." He had shown disrespect to a customer, damaged the water hoses of a customer's washing machine, and potentially dam- aged the city's reputation. Since the job was largely unsupervised, the city found it couldn't trust Desantis anymore. It concluded that Desantis had committed culpable misconduct and terminated him for cause effective July 12, 2016. e termination letter stated that Desan- tis had caused damage to the customer's washing machine hoses, a complaint against him was filed, and he was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for his behaviour at the customer's home. e letter also re - ferred to his two previous suspensions in the past couple of years. e day of his termination, Desantis went to his partner's home — his partner was on vacation — and blamed him for the incident that led to his termination. According to the partner, Desantis said he should "go postal," to which the partner responded that he shouldn't do anything stupid. e partner called his supervisor and re - layed what had happened and said he was concerned Desantis might hurt himself or other city staff. e supervisor spoke to a corporate security advisor, who recom - mended he contact the police. e police spoke to Desantis and reported no major concerns with him. e union grieved the dismissal, arguing termination was an excessive response to Desantis' misconduct. 4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 CASE IN POINT: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL WORKPLACE VIOLENCE and customer service are both priorities for public-facing employers, especially those in the public service. Naturally, when a city employee acts aggressively in front of a member of the public — putting the customer as well as co-workers ill at ease, there may be reason to take action, especially if there employee doesn't have a perfect record. The City of Calgary may have overreacted to one employee's poor behaviour while on the job — but the employee made things worse for himself following his dismissal. BACKGROUND

• Cover