Staffer tampered with data in attempt to conceal romantic affair
A University of Manitoba employee was terminated after he tampered with confidential data in an effort to conceal his romantic affair.
A.B. was a senior technology transfer specialist working in the University of Manitoba Technology Transfer Office (TTO) when he was fired on Feb. 14, 2014. He was dismissed for insubordination following the destruction of employer data.
In October 2013, A.B. was called into a meeting with his director after his cell phone bill was flagged for excessive personal calls totalling more than 3,000 minutes. A.B. was warned it constituted an inappropriate use of the employer-owned technology and he promised not to use the phone for personal calls in the future.
Because of the pattern of the calls — which were all to and from one number — A.B.’s director suspected the grievor was personally involved with someone in an extramarital affair. Following the meeting, he advised A.B. to "be careful."
Concerned that his phone records were being inspected, A.B. looked into the employer’s system and discovered all TTO phone records were stored on a shared drive. He decided to modify his phone bill records so that only the front page, with the account summary, would be visible on the shared drive and all detailed pages containing personal information would be deleted.
A.B. copied the files from the shared drive onto his own computer and created a script that would delete the detail pages. After completing the task, he realized the script had altered not just his phone bill records but those of all TTO employees.
On Jan. 21, 2014, the alteration was flagged by the employer. When it was discovered the changes were made using the grievor’s computer, a meeting was called with A.B., management and a union representative on Feb. 12.
When confronted with the information, A.B. argued the records should not have been on a shared drive in the first place, due to privacy concerns. He said he did not mean to make changes to all of the records, and had only intended to make the changes to his own records. He would later testify this was an attempt to conceal his relationship.
The employer informed A.B. that he would be placed on a paid leave of absence as it conducted an investigation to ensure no other university data had been compromised. He was instructed to turn in his cell phone and computer.
A.B. returned to his office to retrieve his phone and was followed by the director. Before handing in his phone, A.B. wiped the device of all data and re-set it to factory status while the director stood by, repeatedly ordering him to stop. A.B. then forced a hard shutdown of his computer and left the premises.
The following day, the employer attempted to review A.B.’s emails to ensure no confidential information had been lost. However, the computer would not start and it was suggested the computer may have been tampered with. Because the phone had been wiped and the computer was non-operational, no investigation could be conducted.
On Feb. 14, A.B. was fired for insubordination. His union, the Association of Employees Supporting Education Services, filed a grievance on his behalf and requested his termination be substituted with a suspension.
The union emphasized A.B.’s long service and lack of previous discipline. The union argued the issue at hand had nothing to do with confidential university information but was a strictly personal matter. A.B.’s actions were driven by his concern for his personal privacy.
When he discovered his personal information was being shared on a public drive, he edited those documents to hide personal information. When he was told his cell phone and computer were being confiscated for search, with no assurance of privacy, he panicked and deleted his personal data. There was no repeated disobedience, the union argued, and no reason to believe the employment relationship was irreparably damaged.
The employer, however, disagreed. Employees in the TTO were responsible for confidential information and worked largely unsupervised. A.B.’s actions had broken the trust between employer and employee. The grievor had shown no remorse and refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
While arbitrator Arne Peltz sympathized with A.B.’s desire to shield his personal life, he said the grievor "acted unilaterally, surreptitiously and entirely without authorization."
The alteration of records alone might not have been found to warrant termination, but considered together with the wiping of the grievor’s phone, Peltz found that A.B.’s actions did "create a workplace problem too severe to permit the contract of employment to continue."
The grievance was dismissed.
Reference: University of Manitoba and the Association of Employees Supporting Educational Services. Arne Peltz — arbitrator. Ken Maclean for the employer, Tony Marques for the union. July 2, 2015.
