Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 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. CREDIT: NITO/SHUTTERSTOCK e HR manager interviewed three of the four employees who were working with Nwaulu on Feb. 11. All three reported that the supervisor had pointed out the loose strut on the fl oor and it was hazardous, though he was speaking to the entire team, not anybody in par- ticular. ey said Nwaulu became argumentative and started speaking in a raised voice when the supervisor didn't back down. ey all agreed the supervisor made no threatening com- ments or gestures but Nwaulu approached him and stumbled without the supervi- sor touching him. One of the employees com- mented that Nwaulu was "overdramatic" when he stumbled. e employees and the super- visor all reported that Nwaulu had a reputation for trying to cause trouble, including between co-workers. e HR manager concluded that Nwaulu's allegation that his supervisor threatened to physically harm him and picked on him was false and made in bad faith, which caused "unnecessary stress" to the supervisor and aff ected the productiv- ity of the team of workers. He informed Nwaulu of his fi ndings and he should re- turn to work while appropriate discipline was determined. Nwaulu said he disagreed with the decision. Worker didn't like outcome of investigation Some time after the incident, two of Nwaulu's co-workers came to the HR manager upset. ey said Nwaulu had called them liars and referred to one of them with a derogatory term. ey both said they would not work in the plant un- til Nwaulu was gone. Nwaulu agreed that he discussed with his co-workers what they had said in their interviews but said one of them approached him and he told them he didn't want to talk about the case and they should leave him alone. He denied calling them liars or swearing at them and asserted they made false statements and were collaborating with management to get rid of him. Nwaulu was sent home pending a decision on discipline and, on March 3, his employment was terminated for making a false and slanderous complaint against his supervisor and acting in bad faith with "calculated and malicious" intent. Nwaulu continued to insist he had done nothing wrong and grieved his dismissal. e arbitrator pointed out that the reports of Nwaulu's co-workers and the supervisor were all consistent and only Nwaulu's diff ered signifi cantly. e HR manager diligently interviewed all of them and there was no evidence why any of the other employees would lie about the altercation. Some of Nwaulu's account didn't make sense, either – such as why the supervisor would know Nwaulu was responsible for the mess when there had been a previous shift. It also didn't make sense why the supervisor would suddenly rush Nwaulu, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator found it was reasonable for the HR manager to determine Nwaulu's complaint was false and at that point proper discipline had not been determined when the co-workers reported Nwaulu's harassment of them following the investigation Again, it made no sense for the co-workers to lie, and Nwaulu agreed he did speak to them about their reports, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator agreed that termination was appropriate for Nwaulu's misconduct. Nwaulu made serious allegations and maintained them throughout the investigation and when given the opportunity to retract them. is confi rmed the complaint was made with malicious intent and in bad faith. In addition, Nwaulu proceeded to harass his co-workers when things didn't go his way, accosting and insulting them. On top of his misconduct, Nwaulu showed no remorse, never apologized, and "maintained his position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary," said the arbitrator. e grievance was dismissed. "(Nwaulu) cannot be returned to a workplace where such blatantly false allegations were made – and maintained – against his supervisor," said the arbitrator. "(Nwaulu) cannot be returned to a workplace where he retaliated against fellow bargaining unit members who were blameless in their participation in the investigation." For more information see: • Cooper Industries (Electrical) Inc. and USW, Local 9042 (Nwaulu), Re, 2015 Car- swellOnt 8747 (Ont. Arb.). e HR manager interviewed three of the four employees who were working with Nwaulu on Feb. 11. All three reported that the supervisor had pointed out the loose strut on the fl oor and it was hazardous, though he was speaking to the entire team, not anybody in par- ticular. ey said Nwaulu became argumentative and started speaking in a raised voice when the supervisor didn't back down. ey all agreed the supervisor made no threatening com- ments or gestures but Nwaulu approached him and stumbled without the supervi- sor touching him. One of the employees com- mented that Nwaulu was "overdramatic" when he e employees and the super- visor all reported that Nwaulu had a reputation for trying to cause trouble, including between co-workers. e HR manager concluded that Nwaulu's allegation that his supervisor August 19, 2015 | Canadian Employment Law Today

• Cover