Employee tried to claim he wasn’t given proper ethics training but all employees knew of policies
A federal labour relations board has upheld the firing of a British Columbia employment insurance (EI) worker who looked up the personal information of some of his neighbours during a homeowners’ dispute.
Grant Shaver was an investigation and control interviewing officer in the Vancouver EI operations of the Department of Human Resources and Development, Service Canada. Shaver was initially hired by Service Canada in 1990 and eventually became an officer. He swore an oath affirming a “Solemn Affirmation of Office and Secrecy” and signed a Memorandum of Understanding stating employees could not be directly involved in or influence an EI claim or other service provided by Service Canada. He was also subject to a code of ethics prohibiting conflicts of interest and took training on ethics.
In order to access the information needed to work on EI claims, Shaver was given “reliability status,” a level of classification giving him access to sensitive information relating to personal, medical and financial information of claimants.
In 2004, Shaver and his wife bought an apartment in Surrey, B.C. Soon, they began to have problems with the building’s management and became involved in the building’s governing council. The couple joined forces with a neighbouring couple and Shaver told them he was a field investigator for EI and was looking at the names of the other people on the council. The neighbor also claimed Shaver said he had looked up information on a former member of the council and found out the individual owed $500 to EI from an overpayment, as well as the individual’s birth date and occupation.
Shave had a falling out with the neighbour and the neighbor became worried Shaver was using information from his work to gain an advantage over other members of the building council. The neighbor reported Shaver to Service Canada on March 31, 2008, which prompted an investigation by the employer.
After receiving the complaint, Service Canada interviewed the neighbor and another member of the building council who was concerned his private information had been compromised. It also interviewed Shaver and brought in an IT security investigator to determine Shaver’s access to its databases.
Shaver initially admitted to looking up the names of some of the people and eventually his neighbor. The IT security investigator determined he had used his code to search for the five names and access personal information on one of them. The others weren’t in the database.
In a second interview with his employer in June 2008, Shaver admitted he “checked on” two of the people indicated but denied giving the information to anyone other than his wife. He also admitted that he had checked information at work relating to friends with EI claims and gave them advice. He had been doing this periodically over the past 15 years, he said. He also expressed his “sincere apology.”
Following the second interview and subsequent report, Service Canada suspended Shaver without pay effective Sept. 30, 2008, pending an investigation of his conduct. As part of the investigation, Shaver’s manager interviewed him in October and again in November. Shaver denied receiving any ethics training and the information he accessed was “just between me and my wife.” He also denied telling anyone he was a field investigator but he acknowledged he looked up the five names. He explained he checked up on his neighbor because he was afraid of the neighbour’s vindictiveness.
Service Canada determined that his reasons for looking up the names did not justify violating its rules on the protection of client information. It also felt his claim of not receiving ethics training wasn’t credible as its records indicated he had received it, which all employees did. It also noted that Shaver’s conduct was not isolated and he had been violating the department’s policies for 15 years by helping his friends with their claims. It was decided Shaver had breached his responsibilities as an interviewing and control officer and could no longer be trusted in the role. These facts outweighed his lengthy discipline-free tenure and on Nov. 26, 2008, Service Canada terminated Shaver’s employment. Two weeks later, it also informed him it had revoked his reliability security status.
Shaver filed a grievance, claiming he had learned his lesson and wouldn’t repeat the misconduct. He said he was good at his job and could return to work without any problems and pointed to his years of experience without discipline.
The Canadian Public Service Labour Relations Board found there was sufficient evidence from the investigations and Shaver’s admissions that he looked up the names in Service Canada’s database. However, it found Shaver had not been completely straightforward during the interviews. He didn’t admit to all the names he looked up until presented with the IT investigation’s proof. The board found he also played down the extent of how much he revealed to people and tried to shift blame from himself by claiming he didn’t receive proper ethics training.
“The inconsistencies in (Shaver’s) admissions go beyond a problem of memory or advertent mistakes,” said the board. “Instead, (he) has taken a tactical approach to his admissions, changing them as needed, but always with a mind to minimizing them.”
The board found regardless of how much training he received, he knew what Service Canada’s expectations were regarding ethics and confidentiality. He knowingly breached these obligations and this, combined with his evasiveness during the investigation, constituted “serious misconduct,” said the board. In addition, the board also found his assistance of his friends with their EI claims was repetitive misconduct. All of this added up to just cause for termination, said the board.
“(Shaver) was employed at a position that carried a moderate level of responsibility including access to personal and confidential information and a moderate level of trust was also required of (him),” said the board. “He breached the obligations placed on him when he exercised that responsibility and he has not demonstrated …that he understands the nature of that responsibility or those obligations.”
For more information see:
