Employee learns the hard lesson of telling a lie

The missed call

A pipeline employee is on standby emergency duty and goes for a hike. An emergency happens, but the worker can’t be reached on his cell phone. When he does finally return the call, he tells the dispatcher a tale of misadventure. The employer catches the lie and fires him.

A British Columbia gas pipeline employee has learned the hard way that it pays to tell the truth. Neil Komant was fired from his job with FortisBC Energy Inc. in December 2010 when the company determined he lied about the events surrounding a "missed" emergency call to his company cell phone.

Komant was on standby duty as a crew chief on the afternoon and evening of October 7, 2010 when he decided to go for a hike with his son and future brother-in-law. Under the terms of the collective agreement, standby duty required Komant to be immediately available in the event of an afterhours emergency.

That day, an emergency call came at 6:01 p.m., 30 minutes after a contractor hit a gas line near Vernon, B.C. The dispatch operator called Komant's cell phone at 6:01 p.m., but couldn't reach him. He left a message and called back several more times over the next hour, leaving a message with Komant's wife at his home as well.

But it wasn't until more than an hour later that Komant first connected with his wife by cell phone. He told her he was on his way home, hung up, and called the dispatcher for the first time. It was 7:13 p.m. By then a crew was already on scene and he was told he was no longer needed.

Komant told the dispatcher he had lost his cell phone, his phone was dying, and he had to deal with a flat tire on the way home. The employer didn't buy his story and held two meetings to investigate the "missed" call. On December 8, 2010, Komant was fired.

"Trust is the cornerstone of your employment relationship and you have destroyed that trust," the employer wrote in its letter of termination.

Missing the call

In his testimony, Komant said he had few concerns about going on a hike in Oyama, about 30 minutes from his home, because his cell phone had worked there before. He explained the group returned from the hike only to realize he had dropped the phone. He heard a beep and located it about 100 yards away under a log.

After picking it up, Komant saw the dispatcher's number on his caller ID and knew that meant there was an emergency. At the following meetings with the employer, he recounted the events of that evening starting with the lost phone. He explained that even after finding the phone, he had difficulties calling home and the dispatch office because the phone kept cutting out.

However, according to phone records, Komant did call into his message retrieval system at 6:06 p.m. – five minutes after dispatchers left the initial message. While it's unknown whether he actually received the message, it took more than an hour for him to then call the dispatcher.

Komant said he was held up by the flat tire, which took longer to repair than expected because the truck was new and he had never changed a tire on it before, although he testified the truck's tires had been causing problems and three of the tires had already been changed. He was further hamstrung, he said, by the phone because the battery had died and his charger was at home.

Investigation is launched

The employer met with Komant and a union representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers almost three weeks later. The meeting was held at the last minute and it caught him off guard, according to the union's testimony. At that meeting, Komant was asked to recall the events of that evening. While he mentioned losing the phone and the technical problems he had with it, he failed to mention the flat tire.

A second meeting was held in early December and Komant repeated the same story, only mentioning the flat tire this time when asked about it directly by the employer. Five days later, he was given a letter of termination.

In the letter, the employer underscored that it was the lying, not the breach of duty, that caused him to lose his job.

"Compounding the neglect of duty is your untruthfulness and effort to cover up during both investigation meetings. Throughout both meetings you were deceitful," it said. "This attempt to mislead that was maintained and elaborated from October 7th through December 3rd completely undermines your integrity."

One offence…or two?

In his decision, arbitrator John L. McConchie examined the inconsistencies in Komant's testimony, and sided with the employer's version that Komant had likely gone for a longer hike, realized he missed the call and panicked. McConchie noted many people caught in a similar situation may choose not to tell the truth at the outset, but Komant had two more opportunities to tell the truth – on one occasion at the encouragement of his union rep.

But was the lie significant enough to cause dismissal? And should it be viewed as a separate offence from the original breach of duty? The union argued no but suggested that regardless of the technical issue, dishonesty is not grounds for firing where the initial offence was minor.

The arbitrator disagreed. He said while dishonesty is usually treated as an aggravating factor, when the dishonesty is deliberate and intended to deceive the employer it must be treated as a separate employment offence.

In his decision, McConchie cited Tober Enterprises Ltd., and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518, which found "where an employee deliberately attempts to deceive his employer by a false or misleading explanation, the employee's conduct is clearly blameworthy and threatens the basis of the employment relationship."

An equally important issue, according to McConchie, was the seriousness of the offence.

In his decision, he said Komant's work record suggested he was a skilled employee who was performing his work to an overall standard, with the missed emergency call an isolated incident on an otherwise good record.

While dishonesty does not automatically justify termination, case law suggests it is generally grounds for discharge. McConchie considered whether the relationship between Komant and FortisBC could be restored and determined it had been "destroyed and cannot be rebuilt."

Over the course of six recountings, including the grievance hearing, Komant stuck by his story and never involved acknowledged wrongdoing. Although Komant did apologize at the December 3 meeting, McConchie said it fell far short of an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

"The extent and persistence of his misleading and untruthful statements have destroyed this employee relationship," wrote McConchie.

The grievance was dismissed.

For more information see:

•FortisBC Energy Inc.v. I.B.E.W., Local 213., 2011 CarswellBC 2279 (B.C. Arb. Bd.).

Danielle Harder is a Brooklin, Ont.-based freelance writer.

--------
Was dismissal an excessive response?

In considering the dismissal of Neil Komant, the B.C. Arbitration Board considered several factors stemming from case law to determine whether termination was the correct response. These factors included:

•How serious is the immediate offence of the employee which precipitated the discharge (for example, the contrast between theft and absenteeism)?

•Was the employee's conduct premeditated or repetitive; or instead, was it a momentary and emotional aberration, perhaps provoked by someone else (for example, in a fight between two employees)?

•Does the employee have a long record of long service with the employer in which he proved an able worker and enjoyed a relatively free disciplinary history?

•Has the employer attempted earlier and more moderate forms of corrective discipline of this employee which did not prove successful in solving the problem (for example, of persistent lateness or absenteeism?

•Is the discharge of this individual employee in accord with the consistent policies of the employer or does it appear to single out this person for arbitrary and harsh treatment (an issue which seems to arise particularly in cases of discipline for wildcat strikes)?