Former sniper told co-worker he could hit him from any distance
An adjudicator has ruled a government department was justified in suspending and subsequently firing an employee who made indirect threats to co-workers he believed were spreading rumours about him.
Claude Robillard, 34, was an IT solutions analyst for the federal Department of Finance from 2000 until his termination in December 2004. In 2004, computer equipment valued at $24,000 went missing from the department’s warehouse. These disappearances created an atmosphere of unease among the employees.
Management interviewed several employees about the missing equipment. Three employees mentioned Robillard may have obtained the key from another employee who had access. This was brought up with Robillard when management met with him.
After the meeting on Dec. 7, 2004, a chain e-mail went to several employees discussing past careers. Robillard, who had trained as a sniper in the armed forces, forwarded the e-mail with pictures of rifles and stated he knew how to use them. Robillard then stopped by the workstation of one of the employees who had mentioned him in the theft investigation and asked him to look at the e-mail. The co-worker did so and asked Robillard about shooting distances. Robillard responded by saying he was “very proficient at using the sniper rifle” and he “would not miss him from far away.” Robillard said the same thing to another co-worker who came over to the workstation.
The co-workers felt very nervous after this exchange and reported it the next day, Dec. 8. Robillard’s supervisors met with him and a union representative that afternoon and informed him they would investigate the incident and he would be suspended until the investigation was complete. It was discovered Robillard had sent e-mails in the past containing inappropriate comments about his co-workers. On Dec. 20, 2004, Robillard was summoned to a disciplinary meeting where he was dismissed for making threats and theft.
Robillard claimed the e-mail and conversations were all in jest and he didn’t intend to threaten anyone. He also denied any involvement in the theft of the computer equipment. “An e-mail showing firearms does not constitute an inappropriate act in the workplace,” the adjudicator said. “However, holding a conversation on the accuracy of those firearms and indicating that one would not miss one’s target, constitute inappropriate comments. The fact that the sentence ‘I would not miss you either with this’ constitutes intimidation and threatening comments.”
The adjudicator noted Robillard used an aggressive tone when speaking to one of the co-workers and did not find his explanation of running into another by chance as believable. The adjudicator found Robillard likely suspected they had said something about the thefts to management and went to see them to intimidate them.
“I am convinced (Robillard) wanted to intimidate his co-workers,” the arbitrator concluded. “The decision to separate (him) from his co-workers is appropriate in the circumstances…the relationship of trust needed to maintain (Robillard’s) employment has been irreparably broken.” See Robillard v. Canada (Treasury Board – Department of Finance, 2007 CarswellNat 1028 (Can. Pub. Service Lab. Rel. Bd.).
Claude Robillard, 34, was an IT solutions analyst for the federal Department of Finance from 2000 until his termination in December 2004. In 2004, computer equipment valued at $24,000 went missing from the department’s warehouse. These disappearances created an atmosphere of unease among the employees.
Management interviewed several employees about the missing equipment. Three employees mentioned Robillard may have obtained the key from another employee who had access. This was brought up with Robillard when management met with him.
After the meeting on Dec. 7, 2004, a chain e-mail went to several employees discussing past careers. Robillard, who had trained as a sniper in the armed forces, forwarded the e-mail with pictures of rifles and stated he knew how to use them. Robillard then stopped by the workstation of one of the employees who had mentioned him in the theft investigation and asked him to look at the e-mail. The co-worker did so and asked Robillard about shooting distances. Robillard responded by saying he was “very proficient at using the sniper rifle” and he “would not miss him from far away.” Robillard said the same thing to another co-worker who came over to the workstation.
The co-workers felt very nervous after this exchange and reported it the next day, Dec. 8. Robillard’s supervisors met with him and a union representative that afternoon and informed him they would investigate the incident and he would be suspended until the investigation was complete. It was discovered Robillard had sent e-mails in the past containing inappropriate comments about his co-workers. On Dec. 20, 2004, Robillard was summoned to a disciplinary meeting where he was dismissed for making threats and theft.
Robillard claimed the e-mail and conversations were all in jest and he didn’t intend to threaten anyone. He also denied any involvement in the theft of the computer equipment. “An e-mail showing firearms does not constitute an inappropriate act in the workplace,” the adjudicator said. “However, holding a conversation on the accuracy of those firearms and indicating that one would not miss one’s target, constitute inappropriate comments. The fact that the sentence ‘I would not miss you either with this’ constitutes intimidation and threatening comments.”
The adjudicator noted Robillard used an aggressive tone when speaking to one of the co-workers and did not find his explanation of running into another by chance as believable. The adjudicator found Robillard likely suspected they had said something about the thefts to management and went to see them to intimidate them.
“I am convinced (Robillard) wanted to intimidate his co-workers,” the arbitrator concluded. “The decision to separate (him) from his co-workers is appropriate in the circumstances…the relationship of trust needed to maintain (Robillard’s) employment has been irreparably broken.” See Robillard v. Canada (Treasury Board – Department of Finance, 2007 CarswellNat 1028 (Can. Pub. Service Lab. Rel. Bd.).
