Board disciplined teacher based on unfounded rumours of student mistreatment and complaints, despite good record
Teaching a lesson in investigation
When an employer learns of allegations of misconduct against an employee, those allegations need to be investigated. When the employee is in a sensitive position, such as a teacher, it’s important for the employer to act fast. However, speed can’t be a substitute for quality, and an employer who doesn’t properly investigate allegations of misconduct against an employee can find itself on the receiving end of criticism and accusations.
An Ontario teacher has been awarded $20,000 for what an arbitrator called a “deliberate and prolonged campaign” of harassment to get her fired by her school board.
The teacher worked for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board since 1973 and was at the same school since 1978. She taught various grades between 2 and 5, as well as physical education, art and English-to-French immersion. The teacher had serious allergies and a condition that made her eyes sensitive to light, and also had a sciatic problem that made it difficult to stand for periods of time. The school board accommodated her conditions, removing allergens from the classrooms, allowing her to close window blinds, wear tinted glasses and teach classes while sitting down, after she provided a medical certificate to the principal.
In 2008, the school principal went on leave and an acting principal was appointed. Near the end of the school year, the acting principal asked the teacher to provide a new medical certificate outlining her limitations that could be given to the new principal when one was appointed. The teacher agreed, but didn’t immediately attempt to obtain a new certificate.
When the new principal arrived, the acting principal explained the teacher’s accommodation needs. The principal then informed staff they should be in the schoolyard before 9:00 a.m. on the first day of school and check their mailboxes and email for classroom assignments. The principal reminded the teacher of the need for a new medical certificate and said she would be accommodated, possibly at another school. The prospect of moving to another school upset the teacher, though she promised to get a certificate.
Teacher felt targeted
At the beginning of the new school year, the teacher was unable to check her email because she didn’t have a computer. She also neglected to check her mailbox, and therefore wasn’t aware she was supposed to be in the schoolyard at the start of the day. The principal was also concerned her classroom was too messy, as the teacher kept school archives and old artifacts in her room.
The principal told the teacher she would be replaced by a supply teacher the next day so she could clean up her classroom. He also reminded her of the medical certificate and mentioned there had been complaints from parents. He followed up with a formal letter outlining the fact she didn’t follow the first-day routine, her classroom was messy and there were concerns from parents about her teaching style. After a couple of days with a supply teacher, the teacher returned to teaching her class.
At the end of the first week of school, the principal met with the teacher and they discussed the concerns in the letter. The teacher and her union felt the teacher was being targeted and she felt distressed about possibly moving to another school for accommodation.
In January 2009, the teacher was off work with flu-like symptoms and subsequently injured her leg, causing a sciatic nerve problem. She indicated she hoped to return soon, but the school board’s wellness officer told her it needed to know when she would be back and she should send in medical certificates and an accommodation form. He asked about her medical appointments, and the teacher was upset by the officer’s aggressiveness.
In March 2009, the teacher faxed a medical certificate from her chiropractor to the school, but the principal said the certificate wasn’t acceptable and she needed to complete a functional abilities form. She was told she could return to work, but couldn’t teach a class without a valid medical certificate. The principal also asked for further justification for tinted glasses, which hadn’t been required before. On March 31, she returned to teaching.
In May, the principals told the teacher that the mother of one of her students had complained that the teacher had yelled at her child and ripped up his work, which the teacher denied. The mother also said she had complained to the Children’s Aid Society (CAS), which turned out wasn’t true. Two days later, another parent claimed the teacher had made his son pick up “poop.” The teacher explained the boy and others had been making a mess out of their snacks, leaving chocolate cake or brownies. She ordered them to clean it up and they jokingly referred to it as “poop.”
However, the principal told the teacher the father had also reported her to CAS, and with two such complaints, she was banned from the school. The school then sent the teacher a letter stating it was investigating two complaints of mistreatment and humiliation of students, and also accusing her of hiding in the back of a school council meeting, raising concerns about her “well-being and fitness.”
After the teacher was banned from the school, the mother of the student who made the yelling complaint wrote to the school board supporting the teacher and expressing confidence that the “rumoured allegations are baseless, especially when considering their source.” She added that her son was “shocked and upset that his teacher is suddenly gone” and noted other parents felt the same way.
School board sent warning letter based on allegations
The teacher remained on home assignment until a meeting on June 23, when she was able to respond to the school board’s investigation report. She denied the allegations and returned to work, but soon received a letter following up the meeting that essentially said the school board was still concerned with the reports of student humiliation. She was instructed to “consider the impact of how you interact with students” and to meet at the beginning of the school year to clarify expectations.
The teacher and her union filed a human rights claim, alleging the school board disciplined her without just cause and violated both the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by harassing her.
The arbitrator found the request for a new medical certificate was reasonable, but it should have accepted the one the teacher provided from her chiropractor. The arbitrator also found the initial letter outlining the board’s concerns was not disciplinary, though it was “unnecessarily negative in tone,” given the teacher’s length of service and positive reports about her from parents.
However, the arbitrator found the letter sent to the teacher outlining the accusations of student mistreatment was disciplinary nature and could be read as a formal warning. This was particularly unreasonable because the board didn’t contact CAS, had it done so, it would have discovered there were no complaints against the teacher. The teacher’s explanations were also reasonable and more credible than the student accounts, and the board should have given her more credibility, said the arbitrator. There was also no evidence that the teacher was at the school council meeting, and it turned out to be an unfounded rumour.
“For an experienced teacher to be removed from the school suddenly, in a situation in which, on the evidence, rumours abounded, was undoubtedly the infliction of a penalty, whether or not the employer thought that was its effect,” said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator found the disciplinary actions against the teacher based on inaccurate rumours — which it spent little effort in investigating — constituted “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that was known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” This was harassment under the Human Rights Code and also contrary to the collective agreement, which had provisions against harassment.
The school board was ordered to expunge any disciplinary references from the teacher’s record and compensate her for any loss of earnings or benefits from her ordeal. It was also ordered to pay her $20,000 for the “considerable pain and mental stress as a result of the board’s violations of the agreement.” Finally, the board was required to communicate to the school community that the teacher had been cleared of the accusations and it had “unequivocal support” for her. See Ottawa-Carleton District School Board v. E.T.F.O., 2012 CarswellOnt 3485 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
---------------------------------------------------
Warning letter to teacher
Highlights from the Ottawa-Carleton School Board’s letter to the teacher following her June 2009 meeting, dated July 10, 2009:
“We have concluded the investigation based on the additional information with which you have provided us. While we heard you say that you care for the wellbeing of children and that the information in the allegations (was) false and that they did not happen, our reality is that we have children who have expressed to us in their words and in their own way that the impact of what they saw happening and experienced in their classroom caused them significant anxieties.
“You have been on home assignment and as such it has not been disciplinary and you were informed that you may return to school June 24, 2009.
“We have expectations that you will consider the impact of how you interact with your students and we also expect that you will create a safe, healthy, welcoming and valuably relevant learning experience to your students.
