Poor relationship with church leadership leads to health and safety complaint, harassment complaint and dismissal
Employees have a right to speak up if they feel their health and safety is threatened at work. It’s a common right under most occupational health and safety legislation. If an employee is subject to harassment at work that affects them both professionally and personally, that can qualify as a threat to her health and safety. And if the employer punishes the employee for complaining or informing the employer about it, that’s a no-no under the law. Even if the employer is a church.
Manitoba employer violated an employee’s right to provide information about and complain about conditions affecting her health and safety at work, the Manitoba Labour Board has ruled.
The employee joined Evangel Chapel in Winnipeg in 2007 as a youth outreach co-ordinator. In 2010, she also became the custodian of the church, which gave her full-time hours between the two positions. The employee was also a member of the church’s congregation and worshipped there.
For the first three years of her employment, the employee had no difficulties in her job. In 2010, the church hired a new youth pastor who became the employee’s supervisor in the youth outreach program.
The employee became concerned with the youth pastor’s conduct during church youth events that he was in charge of. She felt children were being left unattended and unsupervised, which exposed them to potential dangers. She also believed this led to children vandalizing the property and not cleaning up after themselves during events, which affected the amount of work she had as custodian of the church.
The employee told the youth pastor of her concerns and also brought the situation to the attention of the senior pastor. As a result, her relationship with the youth pastor deteriorated. The employee felt the senior pastor didn’t address her concerns and the youth pastor’s supervision continued to frustrate her.
The youth pastor felt the employee was being disrespectful towards him and she often yelled at him. He testified children became reluctant to come to the church’s youth events because of the employee’s behaviour, so he reported his concerns to the pastor. He told the pastor she made derogatory comments towards him and looked through private documents in his desk.
The pastor was worried the employee was displaying a disrespectful attitude towards him as well, along with problems with punctuality and submission of expenses. The church board decided in early 2013 that the employee shouldn’t communicate with the youth pastor on employment matters.
Also in early 2013, the employee began counselling with a visitation pastor regarding personal matters. The visitation pastor gave the Evangel Chapel’s pastor a report of this counselling, which included references to personal matters of the employee.
On March 7, 2013, the church board and elders met with the pastor and youth pastor. The employee was invited to join them midway through the meeting to discuss her counselling sessions and attitude towards the leadership, with the intention not to fire her but “to provide clarity and reconciliation." The pastor handed out copies of the counselling report to the board members, but the employee didn’t receive a copy when she arrived. Things didn’t go well and the youth pastor said he wasn’t prepared to work with the employee any longer. The pastor did not comment on whether he could work with the employee.
Upset employee filed harassment complaints
The next day, the employee found copies of the counselling report in the church foyer and was upset at the breach of confidence. She also felt the information wasn’t true and was “slanderous.” She emailed the church board and elders to say she was being harassed in her employment and the pastor breached her confidence. She asked why the confidential information was circulated and suggested outside mediation to resolve matters. She also contacted the overseeing fellowship of churches — of which the Evangel Chapel was a member.
On March 21, the church gave the employee a written warning about her attitude, disrespect towards the leadership, controlling her anger, attendance, church cleaning schedule, discussing personal job-related matters with church membership, and other issues. There were no concerns with her overall job performance, but there was concern her relationship with the youth pastor was causing stress for some volunteers. The warning concluded: “Any inconsistencies in this matter will be viewed as an act of disobedience where termination of employment may be considered.”
The employee refused to sign the letter of warning.
On April 3, the employee was told she was being removed from volunteer activities with the church and would no longer be allowed to teach Sunday school, which she had done for 10 years. She told the church board this was a continuation of the pattern of harassment, but she was told it was “for her own protection and benefit until such time that normality would return.”
The employee complained to the fellowship of churches about the pastor, which began an investigation. She also emailed the church board complaining her workplace was hostile and suggested she discussed things with the Manitoba Employment Standards Branch.
On June 1, the fellowship of churches completed its investigation and charged the pastor with violating the ministerial code of ethics by “violating the confidence of those who seek help,” not providing spiritual support to a congregation member and assuming “dictatorial authority.” The employee wrote to the fellowship the next day to say she was being harassed in the course of her employment.
The senior pastor was suspended from his position with the Evangel Chapel and the fellowship’s superintendent took over his duties. The following week, he emailed the employee and asked her not to attend the church service — to which the pastor had been asked to attend — because it was “best to keep your head down until things are settled.” The employee replied that she wished to be at the service.
Employee isolated despite validation of complaint
At that week’s service on June 30, the congregation was told the pastor had been suspended and the pastor spoke, saying he would return as soon as possible. The employee interrupted the service and asked for an apology, which led to several people yelling and arguing. The church later received complaints about the conduct of the employee and the youth pastor.
On July 5, the church suspended the employee for 10 days with pay for disrespecting church leadership, failure to control her temper in the work environment and inconsistent work hours. The employee wasn’t interviewed before the suspension was imposed.
The employee refused to accept the suspension and continued to run the youth program out of her home. She emailed the acting chairs of the church board to describe the activities she planned and continued to perform her custodial duties at the chapel. This raised concerns with members of the board over liability if anything happened to the children attending the program.
The employee also filed a complaint with the province’s Workplace Safety and Health, claiming harassment. The fellowship also officially informed her of the results of the charge against the pastor on July 26, recognizing he violated her confidence and her allegations against him were true.
Workplace Safety and Health issued an improvement order to the church on Aug. 23, noting the church didn’t have a harassment prevention policy in place. The same day, the employee was dismissed and given 10 weeks' pay in lieu of notice. A few days later, she filed a discriminatory action complaint to Workplace Safety and Health, which was later dismissed. The employee appealed to the Manitoba Labour Board.
The labour board found the written warning, paid suspension and dismissal were discriminatory actions under the provincial Workplace Safety and Health Act on the part of the church because the employee “gave information about workplace conditions affecting the safety, health or welfare of any worker.”
However, the labour board found the church could prove that its decision to issue a written warning was based on real concerns about the employee’s conduct at work, not her complaint. This was not the same for the suspension and dismissal, which were influenced in part by the employee’s provision of information about workplace conditions affecting her health and safety, said the labour board.
The labour board pointed to evidence that the acting head of the church board admitted the complaint to Workplace Safety and Health “added fuel to the fire” in the consideration of reasons to fire the employee. The acting head also said the termination decision was “partly influenced by the church board’s desire to get back at the (employee) for her complaint about the pastor’s conduct which, she claimed, constituted workplace harassment.”
However, due to the employee's conduct — such as her defiance of the suspsion, for example — the labour board found reinstatement wouldn’t be a good solution, so it ordered the church to pay the employee $3,500 for interfering with her exercise of rights under the act — $1,500 for the suspension with pay and $2,000 for the dismissal.
For more information see:
- F. (D.). and Chapel, Re,
