Officer altered letter of employment to apply for mortgage
Our personal lives seep into our work lives on a regular basis — but one bylaw officer in Kamloops, B.C., took that one step too far and was fired as a result.
The grievor — referred to only as Ms. X to protect her identity — was accused and later admitted to fudging a letter of employment she requested from the city in order to apply for a mortgage.
While the City of Kamloops terminated her employment on the basis of credibility, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) disagreed, arguing that the particulars of her circumstances warranted her somewhat reckless action, and a lesser form of discipline was the appropriate route.
Ms. X’s personal situation was a tumultuous and storied one. Her partner and their three children were being stalked, harassed and bullied by an individual from a previous relationship. Ms. X began to fear for the safety of her family and decided to relocate on short notice. The prospective housing required a letter of employment, so she requested one from the city’s human resources department. The situation quickly became muddled.
As an on-call bylaw officer, Ms. X was responsible for working with the community to address bylaw complaints, including collecting evidence, establishing whether an offence has occurred, issuing violation notices and testifying in court under oath. Although her position was technically on-call, she said she worked full-time hours because of overtime, vacation relief and the like.
As such, Ms. X at the time did not see anything wrong with altering her letter of employment to read "full-time" as opposed to "on-call." In her view, she believed it would "look better" to her bank whilst applying for new financing for her mortgage, which she so desperately needed.
"She panicked as she was concerned that, if she did not obtain the mortgage, she would not be able to move her family to safety," the union said.
When the City of Kamloops discovered her falsification of the letter, her manager confronted her — with less than satisfactory results. Not only did Ms. X deny that she had changed the communiqué, but her attitude was deemed "aggressive" and "defiant," according to the city. After a 48-hour suspension, Ms. X was terminated. CUPE filed a grievance on her behalf.
For one, the union argued, Ms. X was not aggressive as perceived during the meeting. Rather, she had been under high stress because of her mounting personal problems. When asked why she lied about the letter in the first place, the officer said she was doing what she thought would be best for her family.
CUPE argued that, while her actions were wrong, termination was excessive.
"(We) do not dispute that Ms. X’s dishonesty has given the employer some cause for discipline and agree that the city has the right to expect its employees to be honest," the union said during the hearing. "However, while the mitigating factors here do not excuse the conduct, they are sufficient to support the conclusion that the termination was unwarranted and a lesser penalty should be substituted."
Given the nature of her job, trust is paramount, the city argued. Dishonest conduct can occur in a number of ways, but it is the act of dishonesty itself that goes to the root of the employment relationship. It was not enough for the employee to say she was stressed out or that she is now sorry.
"Ms. X chose her own interests over those of her employer for a slight personal benefit and then lied about it, all of which amounts to a breach of trust that renders the employment relationship irreparable," the city said.
Credibility is key, said arbitrator Julie Nichols. Because of the nature of a bylaw officer’s work — in particular, testifying in court — the employer’s concern that Ms. X’s credibility would become a liability was upheld.
"The falsification of a city document by a city bylaw officer is a form of severe misconduct," Nichols said in her decision. "Its alteration was for her personal benefit, and it directly related to and undermined representations made by the city in one of its own documents," she added as she dismissed the grievance.
Reference: City of Kamloops and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 900. Julie Nichols — arbitrator. Donald Jordan for the employer, Anthony Glavin for the union. March 17, 2014.
