Comprehensive investigation revealed worker’s account of events contradicted all other witnesses; worker embellished her story with each re-telling
The dismissal of an Alberta worker for making bad-faith and false allegations of harassment and bullying has been upheld by an arbitration board.
The worker was a pharmacy technician for Capital Care Group, an Edmonton-based public continuing care organization. The worker was hired on a casual basis in March 2005 and promoted to a full-time position in February 2006. She worked in Capital Care’s central pharmacy filling pharmaceutical orders for the company’s entire operations and had no discipline on her record.
Capital Care has a workplace violence and abuse policy that required all reports of violence and abuse to be “made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds.” The policy further stated that employees who make false allegations or are involved in retaliation against someone who made a complaint would be “subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”
During the worker’s tenure, cliques formed in the central pharmacy that led to personal conflict between the groups. A new manager took over in 2012, but only some employee groups supported him while others didn’t. As a result, the conflict increased and some employees acted disrespectfully towards the new manager. For example, the manager sometimes wasn’t able to express himself clearly because English wasn’t his first language, and some employees gave him a hard time about it.
A new site administrator came to the central pharmacy in April 2014 with the objective of improving teamwork and changing the work environment. She held meetings with employees to further this objective. After one meeting in July 2014, the worker emailed the site administrator to express her concern that employees felt unsupported by management, especially the manager who had taken over two years earlier. The worker said the manager bullied people into doing things he wanted and made indirect threats against those who didn’t agree with him. She included emails from the manager that she found offensive and emails she had sent him that had went unanswered.
The administrator reviewed the emails and found the manager’s communications were appropriate and some of the worker’s replies were concerning, so she met with the worker and a union representative about the worker’s perceptions. She didn’t believe the worker felt threatened by the manager, just that she didn’t like his direction and management style.
Problems with employee displeasure and contempt continued and the administrator organized a respect in the workplace workshop in 2016 for all managers, supervisors, and staff. Following the workshop, the worker said it was inappropriate for management to sit in on the session and the administrator encouraged the worker to put her concerns in writing.
Worker ups the ante
However, the worker took the opportunity to revisit her original complaint regarding the manager’s emails and perceived bullying. When told her concerns would be taken to higher management, the worker expanded her complaint to say she had felt “very threatened” by the manager in a January 2016 meeting because he was angry and yelling at her. She also said she was “attacked” by the manager and he bullied her “a lot,” but neither she nor anyone else would say anything to defy him because “he threatens us into silence.”
Capital Care subsequently received complaints about the manager from another employee with whom the worker worked closely and to whom the worker had passed along contact information for the complaint. The worker acknowledged they had both been spoken to about “excessive chatting” and she felt they were inappropriately singled out by the manager.
Capital Care hired an independent investigator to investigate the matter. The investigator interviewed 29 different people over one month, including the worker and the manager who was the subject of the complaint. In the worker’s interview, she further expanded her complaint, alleging that the manager had physically threatened her in the January meeting and was afraid of being fired as well being hit by him. She also said she was worried the manager would find out where she lived.
The investigator learned that at the January 2016 meeting, the worker had been concerned over insufficient training time for new staff. The manager had been frustrated because the matter had been discussed before and, though he talked quickly and said he was disappointed in the worker, he denied raising his voice. Both the manager and another staff member who was present described the tone of the meeting as calm with no aggression, but the worker described the manager as acting aggressive and threatening.
Worker had no credibility: Investigator
The investigator found the worker lacked credibility, as her statements were inconsistent with that of others interviewed, she came up with new aspects of her complaint that she hadn’t mentioned before, her descriptions of the manager’s conduct seemed “exaggerated and inflated” — especially in the January meeting where her account differed wildly from those of the others present — she didn’t distinguish between what she had seen and what she had heard from someone else, she made speculations as if they were factual, and some of her statements “lacked the ring of truth given the statements of other employees interviewed.” In addition, another employee reported hearing the worker say she hated the manager, though the worker denied using any language associated with hatred. The investigator concluded in a report dated March 8, 2016, that the worker’s allegations had no merit and no workplace violence or bullying had occurred.
Capital Care terminated the worker’s employment on April 7, 2016, for breaching its workplace violence policy by making false and exaggerated allegations of harassment, intimidation, and bullying against the manager, which violated its trust in her, the company said. The union grieved the dismissal, arguing the worker believed she was treated unfairly and inappropriately and her complaint was a matter of perception, not bad faith.
The arbitration board found that the investigation and resulting report were timely, as it was all done within a month of the worker’s complaint. The scope of the investigation was also reasonable, given the number of people interviewed, said the arbitrator.
The board agreed with the investigator’s findings on the worker’s credibility, as the worker’s story expanded with each re-telling and independent witness reports supported the manager, not the worker’s version of events. It was clear to the board that the worker “lacks credibility and she deliberately embellished and exaggerated her allegations for the purpose of causing harm to the manager.”
The board determined that the worker acted in bad faith when she made her complaint and her motivations were geared towards harming a manager she simply didn’t like. This provided just cause for dismissal, said the board in dismissing the grievance.
For more information see:
• HSAA and Capital Care Group Inc., Re, 2018 CarswellAlta 2575 (Alta. Arb.).
