Failure to follow expectations outlined in non-disciplinary letter
An arbitrator has upheld the firing of a British Columbia university staff member who received a non-disciplinary letter that outlined how he shouldn’t conduct himself while still on his probationary period.
Robert Krausz was an instructor in adult basic education (ABE). In September 2015, he was hired as an ABE instructor by Vancouver Island University at its campus in Nanaimo, B.C. According to the collective agreement, such positions had a one-year probationary period that could be extended an additional six months if required.
Krausz also was appointed ABE chair at the university's campus in Powell River, B.C., in January 2016. Soon after, he began planning for the fall term. Normally, scheduling the ABE program was a collaborative process with the four instructors in the department — many had other teaching commitments — but Krausz developed the 2016 schedule on his own. A long-time instructor at the campus, Zora Soprovich, had a conflict with her teaching schedule as a faculty association instructor as well as her schedule sharing a car with her spouse. She also felt the time slot for ABE courses proposed by Krausz wasn’t convenient for students with children.
Soprovich suggested alternatives, but Krausz submitted a final draft that had further changed and ignored her concerns.
Soprovich had also taken exception to an email Krausz had sent to the faculty dean requesting budget information that stated he had “unanimous agreement and support from my entire instructor team.” She didn’t support him and believed others didn’t either.
The campus administrator agreed the class times would be a problem for students with children and proposed a schedule with staggered times. Krausz rejected it, saying his schedule allowed students who work in the day a better chance of attending.
The faculty dean came up with a compromise that allowed Soprovich to have her afternoon classes end earlier. However, the incident and Krausz’s behaviour affected Soprovich and she spoke with an HR representative about workplace bullying.
More complaints
The HR department received an informal complaint from the campus education counsellor, Curtis Colgrave, who had come into conflict with Krausz over adding math and science courses to boost enrolment. Colgrave said Krausz had made a comment at a meeting that senior staff at the Nanaimo campus were asking how many staff were working in Powell River given the low enrolment. Krausz also persisted with the issue when it had already been decided by the majority not to add courses at that time.
The faculty dean heard other complaints about how Krausz treated people, including reducing staff members to tears and acting disrespectful towards colleagues.
In June 2016, the HR department recommended termination of Krausz’s employment, but the faculty dean decided to give him a letter of expectation indicating he needed to change his behaviour and communication style. The letter listed instances of inappropriate verbal communication with and treatment of co-workers and stated he must follow the university’s respectful workplace and harassment policies. Krausz asked the dean what impact the letter would have on his probationary period, but the dean replied he had already passed probation. The dean had no recollection saying this.
Krausz stepped down as ABE chair, but was given the role of curriculum developer. He continued his campaign to add math and science courses, but he didn’t receive support. He sent a series of long emails to administrators expressing his displeasure, including a suggestion that he focus on the ABE program as a “veiled threat of retribution.”
The faculty dean learned of the emails and determined Krausz wouldn’t change his ways, even after the letter of expectation. On Sept. 1, 2016, the university terminated his employment, as it had decided he was unsuitable for the position.
Krausz disputed that he was a probationary employee, as he claimed the dean had told him he was no longer on probation. The union also argued that even if Krausz was still on probation, the university didn`t have cause to dismiss as it failed to warn Krausz that his job was in jeopardy — the letter of expectation was non-disciplinary.
Determined employee was unsuitable
The arbitrator didn’t believe Krausz's assertion that the faculty dean had told him his probationary period was over. The collective agreement expressly provided for a one-year probationary period, which meant Krausz's went to September 2016. In addition, the union chair who attended the meeting didn't note any such decision and there was no documentation of it. Krausz had not passed his probation and wasn't subject to the just-cause protection of a regular employee, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator also found that collaboration was important between the staff in the Powell River ABE program, as it was small and resources were shared. "Communication and collegiality was critical" and well-established, but Krausz's conduct towards the instructors and other staff damaged workplace relationships and caused potential problems with the program. In addition, Krausz sought to deflect responsibility from himself for the damage, even though he "was at the epicentre of these problematic relationships," the arbitrator said.
In addition, while the letter of expectation wasn't disciplinary, it outlined what was expected of Krausz, but Krausz continued to display the same behaviour. This gave the university enough to determine he wasn't suitable for employment, said the arbitrator.
"(Krausz) was being told his communications with others was not satisfactory and he was basically being told to change his behaviour," the arbitrator said in dismissing the grievance and upholding Krausz's dismissal. "If (Krausz) concluded that this did not constitute a caution to the effect that his continued employment was under threat if he chose not to comply with the direction given, he did so at his own peril." See Vancouver Island University and BCGEU (Krausz), Re, 2018 CarswellBC 3527 (B.C. Arb.).
