Employee said she needed to come and go as she pleased but neglected core job duties
A British Columbia employer had just cause to dismiss a community health co-ordinator who tried to do too much in the community, an adjudicator has ruled.
Leona Billy joined the Skeetchest’n Indian Band, near Kamloops, B.C., as an addictions and mental health co-ordinator in 2007. The position was newly created to deal with the problem of family violence and substance abuse in the community. Her job duties, which were described to her when she started, included working with other agencies to facilitate addictions and mental health education and awareness, looking for funding for addiction and mental health services, and approaching people with addictions or mental health issues and offering assistance. The band emphasized that the job was not a counselling position, though Billy was a certified therapist with experience in addictions and mental health counselling.
With her background, Billy couldn’t resist counselling some of the people she encountered in the course of her community outreach. She would leave the office to perform some of her outreach services and at the beginning she could come and go as she needed to, and simply leave a note for her manager. However, when a new manager arrived, she was expected to wait for authorization before leaving the office. Various forms were created for approval for off-site work, overtime and lieu time.
The band used a time clock to compare hours with employees’ submitted time sheets, and most weeks Billy’s time sheets were different than the time clock’s hours, and her pay was cut back to the time clock’s record. Billy felt she should be exempt from using the time clock, as well as the authorization to leave, because the nature of her work required her to visit various locations outside the office.
Regular job duties suffered
The band became concerned that Billy wasn’t doing enough of her job duties outside the office and she was doing too much counselling, which was interfering with her regular duties. She was given a written warning on Feb. 11, 2009 that confirmed the need for approval for absences from the office and reiterated her job duties. A second written warning followed on Sept. 14, that stated she was not authorized to counsel clients, but rather to assist them get treatment from other sources. The second warning also stated that a failure to follow directions would result in dismissal.
Billy felt the authorization requirement hurt her ability to go out in the community to speak with people and felt it set her up for failure. She insisted the way she was doing things was the most effective way to do it. However, she was carrying a case load involving counselling that was leaving her little time for her primary role of organizing workshops, education and awareness in the community.
In May 2009, she met with supervisors, who asked her why she hadn’t implemented any drug and alcohol programs. Billy replied that the chief and some of the band council were involved with drug dealers in the community. The council demanded an apology and she conceded she had no direct proof and based the allegation on what some people in the community had told her. She also said her comments had been misinterpreted and was only passing on what she had heard. Rather than apologize, Billy acknowledged the “mental anguish suffered.”
Billy was also late for work on a number of occasions and, in November 2009, the band gave her a verbal warning. However, it continued to be a problem.
In January 2010, Billy’s nephew died and she suffered from depression afterwards. She provided a doctor’s note stating she should be doing low stress work, but she agreed with the band to work her regular schedule but could leave early if necessary. She provided another note in February advising her to stay on a modified schedule, but the band didn’t know what that meant. When the band tried to learn more about her requirements, Billy refused to provide any information or permission to talk to her doctor. However, the band wasn’t prepared to simply permit her to come and go as she pleased. While Billy tried to get accommodation for a modified schedule, she submitted time sheets that showed she worked full hours. She stated she wasn’t doing stressful outreach work, but she didn’t start any community programs during that time.
On March 1, 2010, the band terminated Billy’s employment for just cause, including tardiness for work, not performing her duties as required, unexplained absences and insubordination, despite previous warnings.
The adjudicator found that the progressive discipline process — though which Billy received verbal and written warnings — was abbreviated, but not unfair. Though there were only two steps before termination, they were progressive in severity and made it clear to Billy that her job was in jeopardy. The warnings were an attempt by the band to bring Billy into line with her job expectations and follow procedure for obtaining authorization to leave. However, Billy “resisted all efforts to comply throughout the entire history of her employment,” said the adjudicator.
Though Billy may have proceeded with counselling people out of good faith and a sense of obligation, she contravened direct orders not to do so and it affected her ability to do her job properly. The adjudicator found this refusal to follow directions and a failure to do her job properly constituted just cause and upheld Billy’s dismissal.
“It was an employment relationship that had failed and had no prospect of being rehabilitated because (Billy) persistently demonstrated an unwavering determination not to work within the requirements of her job description and the clear directions given to her by her supervisors,” said the adjudicator.
For more information see:
