Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, 2019 4 CASE IN POINT: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL Homeless shelter worker loses job but gets $170,000 in damages Firing worker for theft and fraud over false receipts issued to client in crisis for unpaid fees was too harsh: Ontario court BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A Toronto homeless shelter worker has won more than $170,000 in wrongful dismissal damages after he was fired for theft based on cir - cumstantial evidence and no real proof the worker was involved with the missing money. Mark Headley, 47, worked at Seaton House, a shelter for homeless men in To - ronto run by the city, starting in 1998 as a client service worker and moving on to the position of counsellor and then shift leader. He was respected by both clients and staff and worked with some of the facility's most difficult clients. Staff considered him "ex - ceptionally client-centred" and management considered him to be "above-average" and able to work indpendently with minimal su- pervision. Seaton House ran a long-term program (LTP) that provided accommodation, meals, counselling, medical care and other services to certain clients who had nowhere else to go, including some with mental illnesses. Most of the clients in the LTP were more than 50 years old and any who had income such as Old Age Security and Ontario Dis - ability Support Program payments were ex- pected to contribute through the monthly payment of maintenance fees that covered rent, meals and services. For clients with regular income, maintenance fees ranged from $415 per month to $701 per month. Seaton House conducted payout lines every month where clients endorsed their government cheques to the facility and staff gave them the balance after deducting maintenance fees. A few clients who had their own outside bank accounts made cash payments directly to the shift leaders in an office rather than using the payout lines. Official receipts were given for those who endorsed government cheques but not for those who paid cash — this was only done when the shift leaders delivered it to the ad - ministration office. Fees paid in cash were kept in envelopes with the clients' names on them in a lockbox in the shift leader's office until delivered to administration, which then deposited it into the electronic accounting system. e administration of - fice was only open during regular office hours, so, sometimes, the money was left in the shift leader's office for days at a time. In addition, informal receipt books were kept, but they were used inconsistently. Seaton House staffed the LTP on three eight-hour shifts. Headley usually worked a day shift from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., as the one shift leader on duty. One particular client had his own bank account and paid $415 per month mainte - nance fees, but he was a difficult client — he was aggressive, had dementia, drank a lot and was frequently robbed outside of the facility. He didn't get along with many of the Seaton House staff, but he trusted and liked Headley. Despite his issues, the client felt Seaton House was his home and didn't want to leave. As a result, if he didn't pay his maintenance fees in a particular month, he was allowed to stay. Receipts issued but no record of payments In late June 2012, the client paid his maintenance fees for July in a payout line. Another staff member was accepting the payments and gave the client a different receipt than Headley usually gave him. e client commented that he liked the "official-looking receipt" and asked if he could have similar receipts for his pay- ments from previous months. e staff member looked in the electron- ic accounting system but couldn't find a re- cord of payment for the months of January, February, April, May or June 2012. e cli- ent became upset and retrieved three hand- written receipts from Headley for March, May and June maintenance fees. e staff member brought her concerns over the missing payments to administration. Headley soon learned of the issue and in - formed administration that he had written two receipts for the client in question for which there would be no record of money received. is was because the client hadn't actually paid the maintenance fees as he had been robbed. According to Headley, the client was upset and worried that he might be evicted from Seaton House, so Headley gave him handwritten receipts on the spot to calm him down. A short time later, the program super - visor assured Headley that "everything is OK" and he didn't need to worry about it. However, management started looking into it, finding that the client hadn't paid main - tenance fees for five months in 2011 and four months in 2012. It also investigated the way clients' money was kept, which staff members indicated was often sloppy and disorganized as there was no set pro - cedure. Headley took two weeks of vacation in early July 2012 to run a youth basketball program. On the last day, the Seaton House program supervisor left a message on his cellphone saying that he shouldn't come back to the facility and "we don't want you here anymore." Headley tried to call back, but the supervisor didn't answer his phone. On July 19, Seaton House management held an investigation meeting with Head - ley, which addressed three receipts given to the client and another receipt for $410 to a different client — the latter which was recorded as in the desk at the end of the shift but never made it to administration. Headley explained again why he provided the receipts, saying the client was "in crisis" in each instance — once after being robbed and another time over potentially being evicted. Headley emphasized that he wasn't trying to be fraudulent but wanted "to deal with the crisis." As for the $410 from the different client, Headley said any money he received he put it in the desk in the shift leaders' office because the safe didn't work. In addition, management discussed an un - identified $415 paid to administration that 4 WHEN faced with potential employee misconduct, employers must be careful they get all the facts before making a decision on discipline or dismissal. Workplace investigations are an essential tool to get the facts, but a faulty or unfair investigation can be just as bad as none at all. BACKGROUND

• Cover