‘What is missing from his apology is any genuine appreciation of, or remorse for, the level of disrespect he exhibited’
A worker’s 43-year career at Trinity Western University ended in termination after a librarian repeated criticisms of his supervisor in a private meeting, and this was reasonable, an arbitrator has ruled.
In a decision dated March 24, 2026, Cathy Knapp dismissed the grievance of a library worker, finding his last-chance agreement had been breached and that no compelling reasons existed to overturn his dismissal.
The arbitrator grounded the final outcome in the terms of the agreement itself: "Just because one is invited to provide feedback does not give a license to do so in a disrespectful manner that does nothing to promote professional working relations or respect organizational hierarchy."
Last-chance agreement
After the worker made disparaging remarks about his direct supervisor in a November 2024 staff meeting, the university issued a three-week unpaid suspension, which was later negotiated down to eight days in exchange for a last-chance agreement signed Dec. 4, 2024.
The agreement required the worker to acknowledge that any further misconduct, "including but not limited to insubordination, disrespectful communication, or behaviour inconsistent with the university's standards of conduct, will result in the immediate termination of employment for just cause, without further notice or compensation."
The agreement also stipulated a meeting involving the worker, supervisor and vice provost of academic excellence, to rebuild trust upon his return to work. However, that meeting never happened.
Knapp wrote: "This was, in my view, an unfortunate and significant missed opportunity, as the meeting could have been a very effective opportunity to review expectations and outline a path forward to rebuild trust between him and [the supervisor]."
Disrespectful communication
On April 15, 2025, in their monthly check-in, the library worker told the supervisor he still did not trust him, attributed the departure of two staff members to his leadership, noted a third was on the fence about leaving, claimed 30 percent of staff were unhappy with him, and said the reason he had not been dismissed after November was that the supervisor was complicit in the problem.
At the arbitration hearing, the worker testified that he understood the agreement only prohibited criticism in public settings. Knapp rejected this, and while she stopped short of finding the conduct constituted insubordination in the strict legal sense, she found it clearly amounted to disrespectful communication — a separate and equally prohibited category under the LCA.
"Disrespect is disrespect, regardless of whether it is exhibited in public or private, and need not be spelled out,” she said.
The library worker also acknowledged having spoken with a colleague about staff dissatisfaction with the supervisor. While Knapp acknowledged the comment may have been a form of commiseration, she found it nonetheless "perpetuated contempt for [his] managerial abilities."
Lack of ‘genuine’ remorse
The worker subsequently met with the supervisor on April 23, and in an email later said that he had apologized “unreservedly,” and committed to following his direction going forward. The supervisor accepted the apology and declared April 23 a "reset day." However, the worker’s employment was terminated on May 22, 2025.
Despite 43 years of largely discipline-free service, Knapp found no compelling reasons to substitute a lesser penalty: "What is missing from his April 30th apology report and from his testimony in the hearing is any genuine appreciation of, or remorse for, the level of disrespect he exhibited towards [his supervisor].”
The grievance was dismissed.
