Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 April 1, 2015 | Canadian Employment Law Today ABOUT THE AUTHOR JEFFREy R. SmITH Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.r.smith@thomsonreuters.com, or visit www. employmentlawtoday.com for more information. the "no garrontee" message. is was considered a threat to the boss of the employee's wife and the employee had deleted it to cover it up. Another investigative meeting was held on June 4 with the HR advisor, manager, the regional manager, the employee and a union representative. At the meeting, the employee said he didn't know when he went to the hos- pital, he didn't go home for lunch that day — then said he didn't remember when confronted with the vehicle loca- tion data that indicated he did —and he screwed up the overtime claim. He also said he didn't know what he meant by his "no garrontee" text message because he was "lost in his emo- tions." He claimed he had written a letter of apology to be sent to his wife's boss — which Fortis obtained the next day. O n June 11, the employee was terminated for his misconduct for following and threatening his wife's boss, as well as dishonesty in his work hours that day and not disclosing what he did. Since customer service technicians were re- lied upon to work with limited supervi- sion and had to be trustworthy, Fortis determined the employment relation- ship could not be saved. e arbitrator found there was no dis- puting the employee went home at mid- day on May 22 and later recorded a false overtime lunch claim. It was also clear he had sent the text message saying "no garrontee" in response to his wife's text to not kill her boss. e vehicle's tracking system also made it clear the van sat in the hospi- tal parking lot for 22 minutes at which point the employee "stepped outside the course of his employment while pur- porting to be on standby" and "the plan was set in motion." e arbitrator also found the evidence showed the employee followed his wife's boss and intimidated her, leading to a warning from police and opening up the possibility that he could have been charged with criminal harassment. e employee's failure to reveal the true facts of the incident to his manager the next day was a conscious withholding of infor- mation that aff ected how Fortis handled the situation — it was unlikely the man- ager would have sent the employee home on sick leave if he knew the true nature of the employee's actions, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator agreed with Fortis that the employee was dishonest in report- ing the inci- dent and continued to withhold infor- mation when he didn't mention deleting the texts from his company cellphone, which he had done to protect his wife from her employer's investigation. His responses that he couldn't remember going home or doing other things were "fallacious," the arbitrator said. In addition, the apology letter the em- ployee wrote to his wife's boss was writ- ten at the suggestion of a counsellor to protect his wife, not out of remorse, said the arbitrator. Ultimately, despite the employee's long and relatively clean service record, the arbitrator found his misconduct was serious enough to warrant dismissal. e employee's behaviour while on duty and the ensuing dishonesty harmed "the legitimate interests" of Fortis that required a high level of trust to do his job. "His grave misconduct in the stalking, threatening and deliberate intimidation of (his wife's boss) on company time and in a company vehicle was a betrayal of (Fortis') trust," said the arbitrator. "He was deceitful, displayed a lack of con- cern for the truth and he removed rel- evant evidence from his company cellphone." e grievance was dismissed and the dismissal upheld. For more information see: • Fortis Energy Inc. and IBEW, Local 213, Re, 2015 CarswellBC 483 (B.C. Arb.). April 1, 2015 | Canadian Employment Law Today also said he didn't know what he meant by his "no garrontee" text message because he was "lost in his emo- tions." He claimed he had written a letter of apology to be sent to his wife's boss — which Fortis obtained the next day. O n June 11, the employee was terminated for his misconduct for following and threatening his wife's boss, as well as dishonesty in his work hours that day the employee was dishonest in report- ing the inci- dent and continued to withhold infor- mation when he didn't mention deleting the texts from his company cellphone, which he had done to protect his wife cern for the truth and he removed rel- evant evidence from his company cellphone." e grievance was dismissed and the dismissal upheld. CREDIT: ROB WILSON/SHUTTERSTOCK

• Cover