Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian Employment Law Today | 11 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 More Cases « from WORKER FIRED on page 1 Investigator interviewed 29 staff members in one month formed in the central pharmacy that led to personal conflict between the groups. A new manager took over in 2012, but only some employee groups supported him while others didn't. As a result, the conflict increased and some employees acted disrespectfully towards the new manager. For example, the manager sometimes wasn't able to express himself clearly because English wasn't his first language, and some employees gave him a hard time about it. A new site administrator came to the central pharmacy in April 2014 with the objective of improving teamwork and changing the work environment. She held meetings with employees to further this objective. After one meeting in July 2014, the worker emailed the site administrator to express her concern that employees felt unsupported by management, especially the manager who had taken over two years earlier. e worker said the manager bullied people into doing things he wanted and made indirect threats against those who didn't agree with him. She included emails from the manager that she found offensive and emails she had sent him that had went unanswered. e administrator reviewed the emails and found the manager's communica- tions were appropriate and some of the worker's replies were concerning, so she met with the worker and a union repre- sentative about the worker's perceptions. She didn't believe the worker felt threat- ened by the manager, just that she didn't like his direction and management style. Problems with employee displeasure and contempt continued and the ad- ministrator organized a respect in the workplace workshop in 2016 for all man- agers, supervisors, and staff. Following the workshop, the worker said it was inappropriate for management to sit in on the session and the administrator en- couraged the worker to put her concerns in writing. Worker ups the ante However, the worker took the oppor- tunity to revisit her original complaint regarding the manager's emails and per- ceived bullying. When told her concerns would be taken to higher management, the worker expanded her complaint to say she had felt "very threatened" by the manager in a January 2016 meeting be- cause he was angry and yelling at her. She also said she was "attacked" by the manager and he bullied her "a lot," but neither she nor anyone else would say anything to defy him because "he threat- ens us into silence." Capital Care subsequently received complaints about the manager from an- other employee with whom the worker worked closely and to whom the work- er had passed along contact information for the complaint. e worker acknow- ledged they had both been spoken to about "excessive chatting" and she felt they were inappropriately singled out by the manager. Capital Care hired an independent in- vestigator to investigate the matter. e investigator interviewed 29 different people over one month, including the worker and the manager who was the subject of the complaint. In the work- er's interview, she further expanded her complaint, alleging that the manager had physically threatened her in the January meeting and was afraid of being fired as well being hit by him. She also said she was worried the manager would find out where she lived. e investigator learned that at the January 2016 meeting, the worker had been concerned over insufficient train- ing time for new staff. e manager had been frustrated because the matter had been discussed before and, though he talked quickly and said he was disappointed in the worker, he denied raising his voice. Both the manager and another staff member who was present described the tone of the meeting as calm with no aggression, but the worker described the manager as acting aggres- sive and threatening. Worker had no credibility: Investigator e investigator found the worker lacked credibility, as her statements were incon- sistent with that of others interviewed, she came up with new aspects of her complaint that she hadn't mentioned be- fore, her descriptions of the manager's conduct seemed "exaggerated and inflat- ed" — especially in the January meeting where her account differed wildly from those of the others present — she didn't distinguish between what she had seen and what she had heard from someone else, she made speculations as if they were factual, and some of her statements "lacked the ring of truth given the state- ments of other employees interviewed." In addition, another employee reported hearing the worker say she hated the manager, though the worker denied using any language associated with hatred. e investigator concluded in a report dated March 8, 2016, that the worker's allega- tions had no merit and no workplace vio- lence or bullying had occurred. Capital Care terminated the worker's employment on April 7, 2016, for breach- ing its workplace violence policy by mak- ing false and exaggerated allegations of harassment, intimidation, and bullying against the manager, which violated its trust in her, the company said. e union grieved the dismissal, arguing the work- er believed she was treated unfairly and inappropriately and her complaint was a matter of perception, not bad faith. e arbitration board found that the investigation and resulting report were timely, as it was all done within a month of the worker's complaint. e scope of the investigation was also reasonable, given the number of people interviewed, said the arbitrator. e board agreed with the investiga- tor's findings on the worker's credibil- ity, as the worker's story expanded with each re-telling and independent witness reports supported the manager, not the worker's version of events. It was clear to the board that the worker "lacks credibil- ity and she deliberately embellished and exaggerated her allegations for the pur- pose of causing harm to the manager." e board determined that the work- er acted in bad faith when she made her complaint and her motivations were geared towards harming a manager she simply didn't like. is provided just cause for dismissal, said the board in dis- missing the grievance. For more information see: • HSAA and Capital Care Group Inc., Re, 2018 CarswellAlta 2575 (Alta. Arb.). WEBINARS Interested in learning more about employment law issues directly from the experts? Check out the Carswell Professional Development Centre's live and on-demand webinars discussing topics such as navigating benefits during the notice period, discipline and dismissal for off-duty conduct, Ontario's employment standards changes, and diversity in the workplace. To view the webinar catalogue, visit cpdcentre.ca/hrreporter.

• Cover