Employee said she thought she had permission to make certain long-distance calls and take leave on short notice
This instalment of You Make the Call involves an employee who made too many long-distance telephone calls at work.
Donna Reid-Moncrieffe, 49, worked in the Mississauga, Ont., office of the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration since 1988, first as a clerk and eventually as a citizenship officer. In April 2010 she was suspended for 25 days for “preferential treatment or conflict of interest.”
Reid-Moncrieffe's manager met with her to set out the department’s expectations, including that she must make “every reasonable effort” to contact her supervisor, first by phone and then by voicemail, to report lateness or absence due to illness. Vacation leave was to be requested in advance.
In January 2011, the department sent an e-mail to staff about the use of office telephones. There had been long distance charges on the office telephone bill and everyone was reminded that personal long-distance calls were off-limits.
The department conducted a review of the office telephone bills in August 2011 to see if the message had gotten across to staff. The review showed that in the past month, Reid-Moncrieffe had made 33 long-distance calls on her office phone. No other employee had made one. When this was brought to her attention, Reid-Moncrieffe acknowledged that all but one of the calls were personal.
Reid-Moncrieffe explained that she hadn’t intended to violate the directive but she had a daughter in university and a sick aunt with whom she needed to stay in contact. She said she had told her manager about this and thought the manager had authorized her to make long-distance calls to those two people if needed. When she realized she was mistaken she offered to pay for the calls — which totaled $6.90 — and gave her manager a cheque to cover the cost. She also apologized for her mistake.
The regional director suspended Reid-Moncrieffe for 30 days since she had not accepted responsibility and expressed no remorse, as well for as the large number of calls. The suspension letter stated that it was her final warning and further misconduct would result in termination of employment.
When Reid-Moncrieffe returned in early January 2012, she was given another memorandum that indicated she must contact her supervisor by phone before the scheduled start of her workday if she was sick and couldn’t come in, as well as a reminder about long-distance calls. The memorandum concluded with the warning that “failure to adhere to the standards outlined above will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.”
On Aug. 30, 2012, Reid-Moncrieffe completed a leave request for the next afternoon, but didn’t send it for approval until seven minutes after the supervisor had left for the day. She then left work early the next day without receiving authorization. The supervisor sent Reid Moncrieffe a note indicating her quitting time along with instructions to give such requests to another supervisor if she wasn’t in the office.
On Sept. 12, Reid-Moncrieffe sent a leave request for the next day to her supervisor 20 minutes after the supervisor had left. She said the software system for such requests wasn’t working, so it delayed the request. Without receiving official authorization, Reid-Moncrieffe took the day off.
On Sept. 16 around midnight, Reid-Moncrieffe left a voice message for the supervisor saying she was ill and would not be at work the next day. She slept through the morning and the time when her supervisor would have been at work to receive a call.
Senior management felt the unauthorized absences, coming so soon after her suspensions, demonstrated a failure to take responsibility or follow the rules despite clear warnings. Her employment was terminated effective Oct. 11, 2012.
You Make the Call
Was there just cause for dismissal?
OR
Was the dismissal wrongful?
IF YOU SAID there was just cause for dismissal, you’re right. The adjudicator acknowledged Reid-Moncrieffe had explanations as to why she made the phone calls and why she had taken unauthorized leave — she claimed to have been mistaken on both — but these did not change the fact she had received several clear warnings and made her “mistakes” despite these warnings.
The adjudicator found Reid-Moncrieffe could be seen to have made reasonable effort to inform her supervisor of her sick leave on Sept. 17, as she left a voice message the previous night. Her explanation that she was asleep in the morning and missed her chance to speak to her supervisor live was plausible and reasonable, so discipline wasn’t warranted for this absence.
However, Reid-Moncrieffe’s absence on Sept. 13 was a complete failure to follow the procedure outlined in her previous warnings and, coming in context of multiple previous suspensions, provided just cause for dismissal.
“According to the principle of progressive discipline, an employer is justified in escalating the sanctions it imposes on an employee for successive disciplinary infractions,” said the adjudicator. “After the 30-day suspension in November 2011, the (employer) cannot be faulted for discharging (Reid-Moncrieffe) from employment for the Sept. 13 incident.” See Reid-Moncrieffe and Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 PSLRB 25 (Can. Public Service Lab. Rel. Bd.).
