Manager fired after second affair with married subordinate; argued company had no business in consensual sexual relationship
An Ontario company had just cause to fire an employee for sexual impropriety, despite the employee’s claims he was in a consensual sexual relationship, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled.
Frank Cavaliere, 50, was a 19-year employee for Linamar, a manufacturing firm in Guelph, Ont. During his time with Linamar, Cavaliere worked his way up from a machine operator to a senior management position at seven different Linamar companies, ending up with Corvex Manufacturing.
Affair with married subordinate
In 1997 and 1998, Cavaliere, who was married, began a consensual sexual relationship with a co-worker, who was married to another Linamar employee. The husband found out about the affair and complained to Linamar’s CEO, who ordered Cavaliere to be demoted and moved to another Linamar plant.
While at the other plant, Cavaliere was promoted to a position where he was a direct supervisor of the co-worker with whom he was still having the affair, but didn’t inform anyone of their relationship. As her supervisor, he recommended the co-worker for a position at his new plant.
Disciplined for sexually inappropriate conduct
In early 2004, Linamar received an anonymous complaint against Cavaliere, which spurred an investigation. The investigation revealed Cavaliere had engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct with subordinates. Linamar ordered him to get counselling and gave him a letter, which told him any future inappropriate misconduct would be grounds for termination for cause.
Several months later, in December 2004, Cavaliere was transferred to Corvex and met another married female employee, who didn’t report directly to him but was his subordinate. They became closer and in July 2005, around the time Cavaliere was promoted to plant manager, they began an intimate relationship.
Cavaliere and the female employee often kissed, hugged and touched each other in his office and sometimes left work on their lunch hour to have sex. He told no one of their relationship, though he was on a committee that oversaw discipline and promotions for all plant employees, including his intimate co-worker. He even told the employee if their affair was discovered, his employment would be in jeopardy.
‘Consensual relationship’ none of company’s business, manager argues
The employee’s husband caught the two at her home one day and they promised to end it. When they didn’t, the husband complained to Linamar’s HR department and Cavaliere was immediately suspended without pay. Cavaliere admitted to the affair but denied it was inappropriate because it was a consensual relationship and there was no abuse of his authority. He suggested things could be solved by transferring the woman to another plant.
Linamar ordered Cavaliere to have no contact with any Linamar employees during his suspension, particularly the employee with whom he was having the affair. Cavaliere said he understood and would comply. However, he contacted the husband to try to convince him to withdraw the complaint.
When the investigation revealed Cavaliere’s 2004 discipline letter for inappropriate behaviour and his 1997-98 affair, the company decided termination was the only option. Cavaliere’s employment was terminated in June 2006.
Cavaliere contested the termination, arguing the company had no business in what was a private dispute between himself, the female employee and her husband. He said the fact they were all Linamar employees had little to do with the situation and the affair was between two consenting adults.
Manager knew what consequences would be from past discipline
The court found Linamar had just cause to fire Cavaliere, as his behaviour was inappropriate for his position as a plant manager and he had received a demotion for a similar situation in the past and a discipline letter for other inappropriate behaviour. The 2004 affair with a subordinate, the court found, fell within his disciplinary letter’s description of “inappropriate conduct with a female employee,” which made it clear he would face termination if it happened again, and was almost the same as the conduct that caused the CEO to demote him in 1998.
“(Cavaliere) knew (the 2004 affair) was conduct which could lead to his termination, and he knew the opinion of the company — at least insofar as he knew the opinion of its chairman,” the court said.
The court also found that in addition to being Cavaliere’s subordinate, the female employee was an immigrant who didn’t speak English very well and even needed her daughter as an interpreter when HR interviewed her in its investigation.
“She was not only a subordinate, but she was a vulnerable subordinate,” the court said.
Since Cavaliere had twice had an affair with a subordinate employee and failed to reveal conflicts of interest either time, was warned for inappropriate conduct on another occasion and disobeyed Linamar’s order to avoid contact with any employees during his suspension, the court ruled Linamar had just cause to fire him. Since he continued to show little remorse and insisted the relationship was acceptable, there was no hope for reconciliation and he was not entitled to notice or damages in lieu.
Because neither side made any attempt to settle during the case and “both decided to dig in their heels” for a long fight, the court ordered Cavaliere and Linamar to split the costs.
For more information see:
