City worker acted aggressively in front of customer and didn’t apologize; also made veiled threat after being dismissed
Workplace violence and customer service are both priorities for public-facing employers, especially those in the public service. Naturally, when a city employee acts aggressively in front of a member of the public — putting the customer as well as co-workers ill at ease — there may be reason to take action, especially if the employee doesn’t have a perfect record. The City of Calgary may have overreacted to one employee’s poor behavior while on the job, but the employee made things worse for himself following his dismissal.
A Calgary city worker shouldn’t have been fired for his aggressive behaviour at a homeowner’s residence, but his actions following his dismissal made reinstatement unworkable, an Alberta arbitrator has ruled.
Andre Desantis was hired by the City of Calgary in May 2001 to be a municipal maintenance worker and flushing truck worker for the city’s water services department. His role as a flushing truck worker involved being out in the field assessing and resolving drainage problems in the private homes of city residents as well as large buildings. Like all flushing truck workers, he and a partner were given daily assignments by a foreman and drove around in a city-owned vehicle.
Desantis had two incidents of active discipline on his record in 2014 and 2015: a two-day suspension for multiple unauthorized absences and a four-day suspension for another unauthorized absence. It was known that Desantis had a tendency to get upset and frustrated occasionally, but he was considered to be a good worker.
On June 16, 2016, Desantis and his partner had a third worker with them in the truck — a trainee who was learning the ropes under the two experienced workers. The foreman, back in the office, received a call from Desantis’ partner from a customer’s residence where they were on a job. The partner reported that Desantis had exhibited aggressive and abusive behaviour in the customer’s presence and had also moved a washing machine without disconnecting the water lines from it, stretching them to the point where they had almost split. The customer had told him and the trainee that she felt “embarrassed for them” and was worried about Desantis’ well-being.
The customer then came onto the phone and said she was fine but she was concerned about Desantis. She also said she wasn’t worried about damage to the washing machine’s water lines but she would run a load of laundry just to make sure. The customer declined to make a formal statement about the incident.
The trainee who was with Desantis and his partner was asked to write a formal statement, so she reported that they were at the customer’s house to unplug the water service to the house. Desantis tried to move the washing machine away from the wall, but it was a tight space in which to work. The trainee said Desantis “dropped F-bombs” and groaned while trying to work, all in front of the customer. The trainee saw the water hoses were stretched and suggested he disconnect them, but Desantis declined. It wasn’t working and Desantis, frustrated, went outside to the truck, where his partner was doing paperwork.
The trainee reported that after Desantis left, the customer asked her if Desantis hated women. The trainee replied that she didn’t think so and he was just frustrated, but she felt embarrassed and uncomfortable with Desantis’ behaviour, apologizing to the customer. When Desantis returned with an auger and his partner, he banged the customer’s vacuum cleaner with the auger, at which point the trainee observed the customer looked annoyed.
Desantis’ partner also wrote a statement and reported that when Desantis came outside he was obviously frustrated. When he accompanied Desantis back into the house, he thought the customer looked nervous around Desantis. He said he himself became uncomfortable around Desantis when Desantis started pacing the hallway, upset when they still couldn’t complete the unplugging task.
They went out to the truck and the partner told Desantis he should go back into the house to explain things to the customer, but Desantis declined, saying “what’s done is done.” The partner went back and apologized to the customer, and they made the call to the foreman.
No explanation for actions
Two weeks later, on June 29, the city held an investigation meeting with Desantis. Desantis claimed he apologized to the customer as he left the house, but nether of his co-workers heard this and the city noted that his partner had reported he had refused to go back and talk to the customer. After speaking to him and reviewing the statements of the other two workers, it was determined Desantis hadn’t followed the city’s respectful workplace policy and customer service model — which encouraged “polite, courteous, respectful behaviour in support of a customer-focused organization.” He had shown disrespect to a customer, damaged the water hoses of a customer’s washing machine, and potentially damaged the city’s reputation. Since the job was largely unsupervised, the city found it couldn’t trust Desantis anymore. It concluded that Desantis had committed culpable misconduct and terminated him for cause effective July 12, 2016.
The termination letter stated that Desantis had caused damage to the customer’s washing machine hoses, a complaint against him was filed, and he was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for his behaviour at the customer’s home. The letter also referred to his two previous suspensions in the past couple of years.
The day of his termination, Desantis went to his partner’s home — his partner was on vacation — and blamed him for the incident that led to his termination. According to the partner, Desantis said he should “go postal,” to which the partner responded that he shouldn’t do anything stupid.
The partner called his supervisor and relayed what had happened and said he was concerned Desantis might hurt himself or other city staff. The supervisor spoke to a corporate security advisor, who recommended he contact the police. The police spoke to Desantis and reported no major concerns with him.
The union grieved the dismissal, arguing termination was an excessive response to Desantis’ misconduct.
Termination letter exaggerated circumstances
The arbitrator found the termination letter exaggerated the circumstances to a certain extent. All reports on the incident indicated that while the water hoses on the washing machine were stretched, they weren’t damaged — even the customer said she wasn’t concerned about them. In addition, the customer didn’t file an official complaint, she just wanted the city to be aware of Desantis’ behaviour.
However, the evidence showed that the customer was uncomfortable with the way Desantis acted during the housecall, even without a formal complaint, and Desantis did nothing to change that. Though he claimed in the investigative interview that he apologized to the customer, this wasn’t credible as it contradicted what his partner reported and what the customer said when she spoke to the foreman.
Given Desantis’ behaviour and his lack of apology, the arbitrator agreed that Desantis violated the city’s respectful workplace policy and its customer service model.
The arbitrator noted that Desantis’ two active instances of discipline — the two-day and four-day suspensions — were for unauthorized absences, which may seem to be unrelated types of misconduct, but “there is the common thread of lack of trust that flows from (Desantis’) actions,” the arbitrator said.
However, the arbitrator found the previous instances of misconduct were relatively minor and while Desantis was known to get frustrated from time to time, there was no record of any serious incidents. The incident in question was the result of “strong emotional impulses” and was more likely an isolated incident that progressive discipline would help correct, said the arbitrator.
Given these factors and the fact that Desantis had 15 years of relatively good service, the arbitrator determined dismissal was excessive in the circumstances and a two-week suspension would be more appropriate. However, the arbitrator also found Desantis’ actions on the day of his dismissal caused additional concerns about his temper. As a result, reinstatement was not possible as the employment relationship was no longer viable. Instead, the city would be required to pay damages including back pay in lieu of reinstatement, the amount of which should be negotiated by the city and the union.
For more information see:
• Calgary (City) and Calgary Civic Employees, Local 37, CUPE (Desantis), Re, 2018 CarswellAlta 1616 (Alta. Arb.).
