The grievor was unsatisfied with the efforts of a co-worker and wrote her several testy emails. When HR tried to investigate, the grievor was unco-operative. The suspension was reduced because the harassment charge could not be proven.
A worker was suspended after she took umbrage at a written warning issued to her after she sent a number of testy emails to a colleague. The union grieved both the warning and the suspension.
C.T. was an Operations Support Co-ordinator at a high tech electronics surveillance and communications contractor. She had 12 years’ seniority and no prior discipline.
On the morning of July 28, 2011, C.T. emailed her colleague H.D. to inquire about the status of a critical courier shipment. The tone of the email was querulous and aggressive.
H.D.’s explanation of the reasons for the delay of the shipment did not placate C.T.
In her reply, C.T. contradicted H.D. and questioned her actions.
After two more increasingly incendiary exchanges, C.T. ended the string with an email that called H.D. a liar and assailed her competence.
H.D. felt C.T.’s language was abusive and harassing. H.D. brought her concerns to the Human Resources Manager.
On Aug. 16, 2011, the Human Resources Manager emailed C.T. with a request they meet and discuss C.T.’s recent communications with H.D.
C.T. refused, saying she had nothing more to say on the matter. She asserted that any outstanding problems were H.D.’s and management’s to fix.
“Obstreperous and unco-operative”
The manager deemed C.T.’s response to be “obstreperous and non-co-operative.”
C.T. was issued a written warning. The warning called attention to the language C.T. used and the derogatory remarks and accusations she made. C.T. was cautioned she had made H.D. feel intimidated and harassed contrary to policies in the collective agreement.
The manager phoned to tell C.T. a warning letter had been prepared and she intended to deliver it. C.T. hung up on the call. Minutes later, C.T. entered the Human Resources Office in a state described as “visibly upset and angry.” C.T. refused to accept the letter. C.T. pointed her finger at the manager while telling her she needed more education. C.T. then stormed out.
C.T. was issued a five-day suspension. The union grieved both the warning and the suspension.
C.T.’s emails were “rude, arrogant, opinionated, and overbearing. They were unprofessional,” the Arbitrator said.
However, they did not constitute “harassment” according to the company’s policies and guidelines.
C.T. was wrong and insubordinate to refuse to meet to discuss the emails. She also mishandled the situation from the outset: concerns that C.T. may have had regarding the shipment should have been addressed to her supervisor.
Not harassment
Nevertheless, offensive though they may have been, the emails did not amount to harassment, the Arbitrator said. The warning was rescinded.
However, discipline was warranted in view of C.T.’s “insubordinate and unacceptable,” conduct, the Arbitrator said.
“From the initial… emails onward, [C.T.] never sought to de-escalate her differences with H.D. or with Management. In fact, everything [C.T] did was designed to escalate the conflict. She refused to meet with [the Human Resources Manager]; she refused to accept the warning letter; she conducted herself in an unacceptable manner at [the manager’s] office. [C.T.’s] conduct was not provoked, but rather exhibited her ingrained belief that she is superior in competence to her fellow employees… At each stage, [C.T.] personalized the issues; she called her coworker a liar; she told [the manager] to learn English; and I find as a fact that she told [a manager at another location] that everyone in [her office] was incompetent. At the time, and since, she has exhibited no remorse for her conduct.”
There were mitigating factors to be considered, the Arbitrator said. C.T. was a long service employee with no prior discipline. The company was short-staffed at the time and C.T. was operating under extreme pressure.
A five-day suspension was imposed predicated on the belief C.T. had been issued a written warning. With the warning rescinded, the Arbitrator said a five-day suspension was excessive in the circumstances.
The suspension was reduced to three days.
