Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, 2021 sent the director of operations to attend and monitor the session. Afterwards, the director told Lawrence that such a format for coun- selling shouldn't be used going forward — although the session went well. In February 2017, a colleague of Lawrence's found a Post-it note after a client session on Indigenous spirituality. The note was insulting, and the colleague thought a client was respon - sible. The colleague asked Lawrence to help her address the need for respect and mindfulness with clients, so they went into the centre's kitchen during a mealtime to speak to a group of clients. However, after they spoke to the clients, some complained that it was an intrusion into their personal time and space, which, under Searidge policy, was supposed to be protected. There was no written policy, but most employees were aware of an unwritten rule that staff and clients were not to interfere with each other's mealtimes. The director told Lawrence and her colleague that they could be considered insubordinate, as only he could reprimand or discipline clients. He also said they breached Searidge policy by going into the kitchen during a client mealtime. Lawrence disagreed that the incident was disciplinary and didn't think there was a problem with the way they approached the clients. Her colleague apologized, but Lawrence didn't. Disciplinary letters On April 5, 2017, the director issued a disci - plinary letter to Lawrence accusing her of uttering critical comments about manage- ment to a colleague and then making the same comments in front of clients in the smoke shack, a designated structure for clients where staff weren't supposed to go — although once again, there was no formal written policy at the time. Lawrence denied repeating the comments in front of clients. The letter also admonished her for complaining to the office administrator about a change in policy regarding the banking of overtime hours, which should have been raised to management instead. On April 17, Lawrence read clinical notes from another colleague, alleging that Lawrence had been verbally abusive towards her and had "aggressively criticized" the colleague after a staff training session ran long and intruded on a client movie night in the lounge. Another staff member at the meeting reported that Lawrence wasn't agitated or vocal, but a client was upset. Concerned about the allega - tion, Lawrence approached the director for a meeting. However, at the meeting, the director gave her a letter reprimanding her for the treat- ment of another staff member. The director had yet to speak with the colleague and requested a written response to the allegation the next day. Lawrence responded with a letter, saying that the timeframe she was being given to respond wasn't sufficient and she was retaining legal counsel to assist her in responding fully. She also denied speaking to her colleague in the manner in which she was accused. On April 19, Lawrence met with the director and the director of operations to discuss her position at Searidge. They told her that "complaints were flowing in," and Lawrence was asked to repeat out loud that any further incidents would result in her dismissal, which the managers felt would encourage her to resolve the issues. They also discussed an inci - dent in which a former client's mother asked Lawrence to contact him, as he was having suicidal thoughts. After not making much prog- ress in the conversation, Lawrence challenged the former client that "there is nothing in your head" regarding his failure to focus on positive things in his life. The conversation ended posi- tively, but when the client returned to Searidge with a different counsellor, other counsellors felt Lawrence's language in the conversation could have been harmful. Lawrence felt she had acted appropriately and refused to accept that she could have made a mistake. Lawrence said she felt unsafe because it was clear that Searidge viewed her as a challenging employee. At the end of the meeting, they gave her guidelines limiting her time in the kitchen area to "eating and simple business matters" and stipulating that the smoke shack was for clients only. Following this meeting, Lawrence requested an independent investigation into the various allegations against her, but this didn't happen. She withdrew from dealing with other staff and refused to attend clinical staff meetings. Initially, the director excused her from the meetings when she explained her concerns about her working environment, but in late July, he directed her to join a clinical meeting, and she refused. On July 26, Searidge terminated Lawrence's employment for refusing "to fulfill duties required in your job description" and her "direct, conscious and repeated refusal to conduct yourself to perform duties as required." Lawrence filed a human rights complaint alleging adverse treatment and discrimination based on her race and colour. Questionable management not discriminatory The board found that there was no evidence of racism towards Lawrence. Searidge's concerns about the appropriateness of her interaction with clients during mealtime, the complaints raised by colleagues, the nature of the call with the former clients, and her failure to attend clinical meetings were legitimate, the board said. In addition, it was appropriate for Searidge to review professional concerns over the way Lawrence handled the call with the former client who was expressing suicidal thoughts, said the board. However, the board also found that Searidge didn't handle all of the incidents properly. The incident with the clients at mealtime warranted investigation, and Lawrence wasn't singled out — her colleague was also reprimanded — but the two letters of reprimand for criticizing a colleague for the meeting that ran long and making statements critical of management weren't appropriate because Lawrence wasn't interviewed to get her side of the story. In addi - tion, requiring Lawrence to repeat out loud the warning in the April 19 meeting wasn't profes- sional, said the board. The board also found that Searidge had a legitimate reason to be concerned about Lawrence's failure to attend clinical meetings, but it seemed her absences were tolerated at first, and Lawrence wasn't warned before she was fired for it. However, regardless of the appropriateness of Searidge's responses to the various incidents, the board determined that Lawrence's race, ethni - city, or colour were not factors in her dismissal. They were based on legitimate concerns and complaints, and although Searidge may not have handled them all properly, they were not discriminatory, said the board. "There were legitimate management and patient interaction issues that were expressly addressed with [Lawrence] though her time at Searidge, but never was her competence questioned," said the board. "Whether they could have been better managed is not the issue before the board." For more information, see: • Lawrence and Searidge Foundation Inc., Re, 2020 CarswellNS 851 (N.S. Human Rights Bd. of Inq.). 6 | | June 16, 2021 June 16, 2021 « from NOVA SCOTIA on page 1 Worker was told that complaints about her were 'flowing in' Cases and Trends Cases and Trends The employee requested an independent investigation into the allegations against her, but the employer declined to conduct one.

• Cover