Manitoba Department of Justice employee’s behaviour not justifiable: Arbitrator

The Manitoba Government and General Employee’s Union (MGEU) filed grievances on MacDearmid’s behalf, arguing she was subjected to unreasonable scrutiny by her manager and co-workers. The union challenged MacDearmid’s termination.

MacDearmid was dismissed on Nov. 14, 2012, following an incident that took place on Nov. 8.

During arbitration, the employer took the position that even if the events of Nov. 8 are not sufficient on their own to warrant termination, they are worthy of discipline and as such constitute a culminating incident.

The union, however, suggested the employer was bundling together a series of incidents that had not attracted any disciplinary action in an attempt to justify MacDearmid’s dismissal.

The union further argued that because the various meetings leading up to the "culminating incident" were characterized as non-disciplinary by the employer, MacDearmid was lulled into a false sense her conduct was acceptable.

On Sept. 25, 2012, MacDearmid was called into a meeting. Her managers expressed concern about her performance. MacDearmid replied the staff did not need to be micromanaged and accused her superiors of looking for a reason to fire her.

A second meeting was held on Sept. 27 to discuss what had taken place in the first meeting. The employer testified MacDearmid was "belligerent" during the meeting, rolling her eyes on several occasions. On Oct. 3, 2012, a letter of direction was given to MacDearmid addressing her conduct on Sept. 25 and 27. The letter was identified as non-disciplinary and was not copied to the union.

On Nov. 7, 2012, MacDearmid was called into another meeting with her managers. At the meeting MacDearmid was given a letter of direction listing several incidents that had taken place in the last month.

The incidents included commenting to a staff member she felt she was being "stalked" by co-workers and asking another staff member if they had been reporting her mistakes to managers.

The following day — Nov. 8 — MacDearmid sent three email strings to management, including coworkers in the correspondence. The emails pointed out errors her co-workers had made over the past several months.

As a result she was called into another meeting management characterized as non-disciplinary. After management advised her that her conduct was inappropriate, MacDearmid reportedly became belligerent. She was sent home.

The union argued that because the meetings and letters of direction were categorized as non-disciplinary, MacDearmid was deprived the support of a union representative and sent the wrong message regarding the appropriateness of her behavior.

"I do not agree that the message sent in the meetings and letters of direction was unclear or ought reasonably to have lulled the grievor into a sense that her conduct... was acceptable," arbitrator Kristin L. Gibson said in her ruling.