Canadian Employment Law Today

4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 False accusation leads to real dismissal Employee's claims supervisor threatened him were false and in bad faith in light of co-workers' reports that nothing of the sort happened BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A n Ontario worker's dismissal for filing a false complaint against his supervisor and then calling his co-workers liars for participating in the investigation has been upheld by an arbitrator. Fred Nwaulu was a material handler for Cooper Industries (Electrical), a manu- facturer of electrical products in Missis- sauga, Ont. Nwaulu was hired in Sep- tember 2002 and in 2012 became union chairperson for his bargaining unit. Nwaulu worked as part of a four-person team of workers who filled customer orders for material such as bolted framing, cables and fasteners. At any one time, three workers picked the material – by hand, with a 'reach truck,' or a fork truck, depending on the size of the material – and one completed paperwork such as printing labels, packaging, and inventory counts. Workers rotated through these positions but often helped each other out as needed. In 2012, Nwaulu began working for a supervisor on what was called the "B-Line." Nwaulu initially got along with the supervisor, but over time he became more confrontational, especially regarding union issues. He often stopped working and told the supervisor he had to conduct union business. e supervisor also claimed other employees complained about Nwaulu, but he told them to contact human resources as he didn't want to get involved unless it was serious. Another source of friction with the supervisor was Nwaulu's safety habits. Sometimes he dropped material or put it in the wrong location, and one time a strut fell of the fork truck Nwaulu was operating. e supervisor conducted an "on-the-spot" counselling session regarding the safe position of the forks but no formal discipline was given. On Feb. 11, 2014, Nwaulu started his shift with the team he'd be working with much the same way most shifts began – with a review of the workload for the shift, the number of trucks expected to arrive, and a reminder of the need to wear safety equipment by the supervisor. e supervisor also walked around the area with the four employees to look for unsafe conditions or anything out of place. e supervisor pointed out a loose strut that had been left in a spot where it could be a safety hazard. He didn't identify anyone as responsible for the loose strut, just that it should be moved. However, Nwaulu became upset and went into a tirade, shouting at the supervisor. e supervisor asked the other employees if there were more safe places for the strut and they agreed, but Nwaulu denied there were alternatives and challenged the supervisor. e supervisor pointed at the door and told Nwaulu he could go back to work or "there's the door." Nwaulu approached the supervisor, but when the two where close together, another employee stepped between them to defuse the situation. Soon after, the employees went to work. e supervisor emailed the human re- sources manager to report the incident, saying Nwaulu was disruptive and insub- ordinate. He also mentioned Nwaulu's job performance was "lackluster at best" and he was making an excuse by saying the supervisor was pushing him. Worker claimed supervisor threatened him Nwaulu filed a grievance the same day, alleging that the supervisor "threatened to beat me up in front of my peers." Nwaulu claimed he felt afraid and un- comfortable at work because of the su- pervisor's behaviour and thought the supervisor would try to get him out of the department because he disagreed with Nwaulu's suggestion about safety issues. e HR manager was out of the office but told the supervisor he would have a counselling session with Nwaulu when he returned. e HR manager was back on Feb. 24 and immediately began an investigation, including an interview with Nwaulu. Nwaulu told the HR manager that the supervisor "came at (him) and had to be physically restrained" and also threatened to beat him up. He said the supervisor didn't mention any names but he spoke to Nwaulu directly and Nwaulu took offense. In addition, Nwaulu said the supervisor told him he would get him out of the department and rushed him twice before the co-worker intervened. e HR manager told Nwaulu to return to work while he investigated further and reminded him of the company's zero- tolerance policy regarding retaliation, so he wouldn't face consequences for raising his concerns. However, the HR manager also said false allegations were slanderous and would also not be tolerated. He gave Nwaulu a chance to retract his allegations, but Nwaulu stood by them. e supervisor came to see the HR manager a couple of times during the investigation, as he considered the allegations to be slanderous. e HR manager said the investigation was purely fact-finding and the results would determine the next course of action. CASE IN POINT: JUST CAUSE EMPLOYERS must always take complaints of harassment and threats of violence in the workplace seriously. This means any such claims must be investigated thoroughly to determine the facts and mete out any appropriate discipline that may be required. However, such complaints aren't always true. And they can be damaging to the person being accused, regardless of the validity of the complaints, not to mention potentially damaging to the workplace environment if the result is strained relationships between employees. So if an employee makes a false complaint intentionally, that employee could be subject to discipline just as serious as that of someone guilty of such accusations – and that discipline could go as far as dismissal. BACKGROUND The HR manager reminded the worker of the company's policies against retaliation and false allegations.

• Cover