Firing came soon after complaint, but probationary employee’s continued refusal to follow directions made her unsuitable for employment
An Ontario hospital worker was fired because of her refusal to follow directions during her short time there, rather than a harassment complaint she made, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has ruled.
The worker was a performance evaluation specialist for Scarborough Rouge Hospital in Scarborough, Ont. She was hired on April 3, 2017, with a three-month probationary period. Her employment offer stated that during the probationary period, the hospital would evaluate her performance and suitability for the position before making her employment permanent.
The worker’s job duties included supporting the hospital’s analytical and informational needs and using SAS, a statistical program. Her manager asked her to provide some training on SAS to her co-workers, since the worker had expertise in using it.
The worker provided SAS training in one 10-minute session shortly after she started at the hospital and again in a session of less than one hour in May. The worker’s manager also asked her to work with a colleague to deal with an issue related to SAS.
On May 23, the worker asked her manager to revise her job description to reflect the SAS training and support to co-workers, something she didn’t think was originally part of the job and considered “additional work.” One week later, the colleague with whom the worker had been assigned to address the SAS issue complained to the manager that The worker wouldn’t work with her because she didn’t consider it part of her job.
The worker’s manager discussed the matter with an HR representative, who told him the worker had complained to HR about being asked to perform training duties she felt were outside the scope of her job description.
HR assessed the situation and determined that the manager’s directions for the worker to conduct training were reasonable. The manager and HR met with The worker and informed her of this and told her there was no evidence to support a claim of harassment. They also said she was expected to work as part of a team, which meant she had to work with her co-workers as directed, including providing training or support when necessary.
The worker insisted her position didn’t include training and support on SAS, so HR offered to review its findings and explain them to the worker, inviting her to take notes. The worker declined to do so and left the meeting.
The worker continued to refused to work with her colleague on the SAS issue — in fact, she told the colleague to give her one week’s notice is she wished to meet with her, despite the fact the hospital’s environment was informal where people could walk into others’ offices to consult when necessary.
The worker’s manager arranged a telephone call with HR and his supervisor to discuss the fact that the worker wasn’t working as directed, despite an additional email from him telling the worker to work with her colleague on the SAS issue and saying he would reduce her workload if necessary to help the colleague. The manager believed the worker’s employment should be terminated because of this continued defiance.
In the meantime, the worker took her complaint to the hospital’s interim president and CEO and said she should be compensated for doing work outside her job description. The president and CEO referred her back to the HR department, so the vice-president of HR and director of HR met with her on June 6 and reiterated their determination that the worker needed to follow her manager’s directions. HR followed up with an email outlining what was said at the meeting and saying that the investigation into her allegations of harassment found none.
The day after the meeting, June 7, the worker emailed her colleague — copied to her manager — saying that she was too busy to work on the SAS issue. She repeated her belief that she shouldn’t be helping her colleague with her work. The same day, her manager terminated her employment for failing to demonstrate suitability for her position.
The worker filed a complaint saying she was terminated for exercising her right under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act to complain about workplace harassment.
The board noted that the worker’s termination came shortly after her harassment complaint and the ensuing investigation, which raised concerns. However, it found that the worker’s continued failure to take direction provided the hospital with reason enough to terminate her employment. The worker was a probationary employee who continued to refuse to follow instructions and work collaboratively with her colleagues — evidenced by reports from her colleague that the worker refused to work with her and made it difficult to meet with her — which made her unsuitable for continued employment, the board said.
The board also found that the hospital took the worker’s complaint seriously, properly investigated it, and properly notified her of its decision and reasons. Given the worker’s conduct, her complaint didn’t factor into the hospital’s decision to dismiss her, said the board in dismissing her complaint. See Umlauf v. Scarborough Rouge Hospital, 2017 CarswellOnt 14748 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.).
