Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER JANUARY 2019 EMPLOYMENT LAW 5 Jeff rey Smith LeGAL VieW JANUARY 2019 JANUARY 2019 Alberta worker fi red after exaggerated and bad-faith bullying complaint Investigation revealed worker's account of events contradicted other witnesses e dismissal of an Alberta worker for making bad-faith and false allegations of harassment and bullying has been upheld by an arbitration board. e worker was a pharmacy tech- nician at Capital Care Group, an Edmonton-based public continu- ing care organization. e work- er was hired on a casual basis in March 2005 and promoted to a full-time position in February 2006. She worked in Capital Care's central pharmacy fi lling pharma- ceutical orders for the company's entire operations and had no dis- cipline on her record. Capital Care had a workplace violence and abuse policy that required all reports of violence and abuse to be "made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds." e policy further stated that employees who made false allega- tions or retaliated against some- one who made a complaint would be "subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment." During the worker's tenure, cliques formed in the central pharmacy that led to personal confl ict between the groups. A new manager took over in 2012, but some employee groups sup- ported him while others didn't. As a result, the conflicts in- creased and some employees acted disrespectfully towards the new manager. For example, the manager sometimes couldn't ex- press himself clearly, verbally or in emails, because English wasn't his fi rst language, and some employ- ees gave him a hard time about it. A new site administrator came to the central pharmacy in April 2014 with the objective of im- proving teamwork and changing the work environment. She held meetings with employees to fur- ther this objective. After one meeting in July 2014, the pharmacy technician emailed the site administrator to express her concern that employees felt unsupported by management, especially the new manager. 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 considered off ensive and emails she had sent him that had gone unanswered. e administrator reviewed the emails and found the manager's communications were appropri- ate and some of the worker's re- plies were concerning. She met with the worker and a union representative to dis- cuss the worker's perceptions and didn't believe the worker felt threatened by the manager, just that she didn't like his direction and management style. Problems with employee dis- pleasure and contempt continued and the administrator organized a respect-in-the-workplace work- shop in 2016 for all managers, su- pervisors and staff . Following the workshop, the worker said it was inappropriate for management to sit in on the session so she was encouraged to put her concerns in writing. Worker ups the ante However, the worker took the op- portunity to revisit the concerns from her original complaint re- garding the manager's emails and perceived 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 meet- ing because he was angry and yell- ing 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 threatens us into silence." Capital Care then received complaints about the manager from another employee who worked closely with the worker and had received contact infor- mation for the complaint. The worker acknowledged they had both been spoken to about "exces- sive chatting" and felt they were inappropriately singled out. Capital Care hired an indepen- dent investigator to look into the matter. The investigator inter- viewed 29 diff erent people over one month, including the worker and the manager who was the subject of the complaint. In the worker's interview, she further expanded her complaint, alleging that the manager had physically threatened her in the January meeting and she was afraid of being fi red as well as be- ing hit by him. She also said she was worried the manager would fi nd out where she lived. e investigator learned that at the January 2016 meeting, the worker had been concerned about insuffi cient training time for new staff . e manager had been frus- trated as 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 said the tone of the meeting was calm, with no aggression. Worker lacked credibility e investigator found the worker lacked credibility, as her state- ments were inconsistent with those of others interviewed, she came up with new aspects of her complaint that she hadn't men- tioned before, her descriptions of the manager's conduct seemed "exaggerated and infl ated" — es- pecially for the January meeting where her account diff ered 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 state- ments "lacked the ring of truth given the statements of other em- ployees interviewed." In addition, another employee said she heard the worker say she hated the manager, though the worker denied using any language associated with hatred. e inves- tigator's March 2016 report con- cluded the worker's allegations had no merit and no workplace violence or bullying had occurred. Capital Care terminated the worker's employment on April 7, 2016, for breaching its workplace violence policy by making false and exaggerated allegations of harassment, intimidation and bul- lying against the manager, which violated its trust in her. e union grieved the dismiss- al, arguing the worker believed she was treated unfairly and in- appropriately and her complaint was a matter of perception, not bad faith. The arbitration board found that the investigation and result- ing report were timely, as it was all done within a month of the worker's complaint. e scope of the investigation was also reason- able, given the number of people interviewed. e board agreed with the in- vestigator's fi ndings on the work- er's credibility. It was clear to the board the worker "lacks credibility and she deliberately embellished and exaggerated her allegations for the purpose of causing harm to the manager." The board determined the worker acted in bad faith when she made her complaint and her motivations were geared towards harming a manager she simply didn't like. This provided just cause for dismissal, said the board, in dismissing the grievance and upholding the dismissal. For more information see: •HSAA and Capital Care Group Inc., Re, 2018 CarswellAlta 2575 (Alta. Arb.). Jeff rey R. Smith is the editor of Canadi- an Employment Law Today. For more, visit www.employmentlawtoday.com. The Dickinsfield Centre is one of the care homes run by Capital Care Group in Edmonton. Credit: Google Street View

• Cover