Complaint raised suspicions with its vagueness
This instalment of You Make the Call features a worker who filed a complaint of workplace violence against a supervisor.
Julien Boileau was a lift operator in a Hawkesbury, Ont., warehouse run by DB Ontario, a pharmacy chain distributor. He was hired in 2007.
On Aug. 6, 2014, the day after Boileau served a one-day suspension, he filled out a company complaint form describing an altercation with one of the warehouse supervisors. Boileau claimed he was standing by an office window making adjustments to his scanning gun when the supervisor came down the corridor towards him. According to Boileau, the supervisor walked quickly over to him and deliberately ran into him with “a sharp blow” from his shoulder. The supervisor said nothing and just walked away, making no acknowledgment of the collision, said Boileau.
The union president happened to be standing nearby, so Boileau asked her if she saw the collision. She didn’t, but told him he had the right to file a written complaint. Boileau claims another employee told him she witnessed the incident. However, this employee declined his request to sign a statement related to his complaint and, when the company asked her about it as part of its investigation, said she only saw the supervisor turn his back on Boileau as he passed by, with no contact.
The company continued to investigate Boileau’s complaint as it considered it a serious issue. Boileau was interviewed and he said the supervisor appeared to be in a bad mood at the time and he gave Boileau a deliberate and solid blow with his shoulder. The supervisor was also interviewed and he denied making any physical contact with Boileau. The supervisor claimed later that same day Boileau asked him about changes that had been made to the schedule rotation system, but the supervisor felt that issue had been resolved for some time and refused to talk about it.
The supervisor obtained footage from a security camera that covered the area where the alleged incident took place and shared it with the company president. The footage showed the supervisor exiting an office and passing by Boileau with no apparent contact made.
The company’s investigation concluded that there had been no physical contact between Boileau and the supervisor and, as a result, Boileau made a false accusation that broke the bond of trust between the company and Boileau. Since an allegation of assault was considered very serious, Boileau’s employment was terminated.
When told of his termination, Boileau expressed surprise and continued to insist the supervisor had deliberately and forcibly walked into him in the corridor.
The union grieved the dismissal, arguing Boileau didn’t intend to make a false allegation and he followed the proper procedure when he legitimately felt harassed. It also said the complaint raised a health and safety issue and the dismissal was a reprisal.
You Make the Call
Did the employer have just cause for dismissal for employee dishonesty?
OR
Did the dismissal constitute a reprisal?
If you said there was just cause for dismissal, you’re right. The arbitrator found no evidence supporting Boileau’s complaint, with the most compelling evidence being the security footage that showed the supervisor walking past Boileau with no contact between them.
Combined with other evidence, such as the other employee’s testimony that she didn’t see any contact, the only logical conclusion was that Boileau falsified his complaint — a complaint that could have had serious ramifications.
“It goes without saying that accusing (the supervisor) of deliberately inflicting a shoulder blow upon him is tantamount to an accusation of physical assault which, if accepted, could have extremely negative consequences to (the supervisor), without any valid cause,” said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator also found the company’s investigation was “both fair and careful.” The president was involved and the relevant employees, along with both Boileau and the supervisor, were interviewed. Security camera footage valuable to the determination of what happened was obtained and viewed and the final decision was difficult to dispute, said the arbitrator.
