High performing N.B. plant manager produced results, but was too abusive towards staff
Good talent is hard to find. So when a company has a high-performing manager who constantly hits targets, it’s tempting to turn a blind eye to how he treats subordinates. A New Brunswick logging company pulled out all the stops in trying to save a high-performing plant manager, but his conduct was so far over the top it had no choice but to fire him.
Scott Hall accepted the job of plant manager at Boise Alljoist Ltd. in St. Jacques, N.B., in August 2001. (The New Brunswick operations are a subsidiary of an American company with head offices in Boise, Idaho.) He was fired on July 29, 2003. He filed a wrongful dismissal suit against the company.
Inappropriate behaviour
Hall moved to New Brunswick from his home in British Columbia, but his wife and child remained in B.C. Shortly after he started, behavioural problems began to surface. In the fall of 2001 a team of auditors went to the plant to conduct a financial and inventory audit.
Sheila Parks, a senior auditor, testified that Hall made her uncomfortable. He did not touch or proposition her, but was very attentive and kept looking at her chest. She also noticed his conduct towards two female employees who were his subordinates. One evening, when a group of employees was going for dinner, Hall said he wanted to sleep with Louise Landry, the plant’s HR co-ordinator.
Jack Jaegar, who was also an auditor, said Hall made comments to him about another female worker. He also said Hall conducted loud conversations in the hallway in which he would publicly criticize employees. Jaegar said he found this unprofessional and obnoxious. He asked around the plant to get the employees’ impressions of Hall. He found “most were afraid of him” and were concerned about job security and his ranting and raving.
The auditors took their concerns about Hall back to head office in Boise. Jaegar told management: “I think we have a problem. Scott’s conduct is out of control.” Larry Henderson, Hall’s supervisor, contacted him, discussed some of the details and let him know the company took it very seriously. Hall said he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong, but that it wouldn’t happen again.
In January 2002 a company executive attended an event at a local restaurant. He also described Hall’s conduct as “out of control.” When he returned to Idaho, he told Henderson, who got in touch with Hall again. Hall was given a copy of the company’s policy against harassment. Henderson briefly went through it with him and specifically talked about “ranting and raving” and treating employees with dignity.
Innuendo rampant
In March 2002 Dawn Blancaflor, assistant general counsel for the company, went to New Brunswick with a team to conduct an environmental audit. She was there for three days and was with Hall about 95 per cent of the time. She said she found his general demeanour towards his staff inappropriate.
On the first day of the audit there was a meeting in a small conference room and there were not enough chairs. Landry, the HR co-ordinator, didn’t have a seat. Hall said, “Don’t worry Louise, come sit on my lap.”
Blancaflor said Hall made sexual allusions all day. She said it went on all the time and was “pervasive.”
A large group went to dinner the first night, including Landry and her boyfriend, who was also an employee. Hall told Landry, in her boyfriend’s presence, that he would like to see her in a mini-skirt with fishnet stockings riding a motorcycle. Landry said her boyfriend was enraged, but she told him to leave it because she was afraid they would lose their jobs.
There was another dinner on the second night of the audit. Hall told Blancaflor he had a surprise for her. This made her uncomfortable, so she went to Hall and told him she didn’t like surprises and didn’t want it.
About 10 people attended the dinner, and the owner of the restaurant came over to her. He was wearing an apron which concealed a fake penis. He revealed the penis “right beside my face,” she said. Hall thought it was funny, but Blancaflor was embarrassed. (Hall denied having arranged this incident, but the court said it preferred Blancaflor's version of the events.)
Hall summoned to Boise
The audit group reported their concerns about Hall to senior management.
The company decided to call him to Idaho for a meeting. He arrived in Boise on April 4, 2002, and met with Henderson and other senior management. Hall was very apologetic and Henderson felt he had learned his lesson. He was given a disciplinary letter.
But problems continued. There was a lot of testimony about Hall’s relationship with the wife of one of his employees. Hall became friends with the worker and his wife, and they went camping and fishing together.
But the worker wasn’t a great employee, and was eventually reprimanded. He phoned a company executive and told him he was under great stress because Hall was taking his wife away from him.
The company confronted Hall about the relationship with the worker’s wife. Hall said it was “purely platonic.” The company accepted his characterization, but spoke with him about the perception in the plant and in the community. Hall agreed the relationship was inappropriate because of how others perceived it.
Henderson and another company executive were surprised at Hall’s conduct in light of the earlier discussions they had with him about his behaviour.
The HR co-ordinator
Landry testified extensively at trial. She resigned her position with the company in November 2002 because she couldn’t deal with Hall anymore.
She began working at Boise at the end of 2000 as health and safety co-ordinator. Hall promoted her to HR co-ordinator a couple of months after he arrived. She received complaints from people in the mill about his behaviour, but was afraid she would be fired if she passed them along.
Landry described a trip she took with Hall to Fredericton for an arbitration. On the way back, he said that people in their positions — plant manager and HR co-ordinator — often have affairs. He said he had only had one woman in his life, and wanted to know about her experience. Landry was very uncomfortable with the conversation. (At trial, Hall claimed Landry had asked him to have sex, and he had refused, but the court didn’t believe him.)
After Hall was disciplined, she said his behaviour became abusive. He avoided her and was always slamming doors. He alluded to the possibility that it was her fault. At one point he gave her a letter in which he accused her of being late, not completing assignments, not being honest and lacking integrity. He later apologized and told her to throw the letter out.
The court said Hall wasn’t a very believable witness and discounted almost everything he said.
Hall tried to argue that things are different in Canada, and that his conduct was acceptable north of the border even if it offended his supervisor’s “little morality code.”
Confusing bullying with leadership
Hall was either unaware that his conduct embarrassed and intimidated others or didn’t care, the court said.
“It appears that Hall thought his treatment of the employees was acceptable. It was not,” the court said. “In many instances Hall’s conduct was a gross and gratuitous abuse of his power. He controlled the men under his supervision by screaming, swearing and threatening them, and he controlled the women by embarrassing and humiliating them. He confused bullying with leadership.”
The employer was justified in firing Hall for cause, the court said. If the company did not have cause, the court would have awarded him nine months’ notice plus moving expenses back to British Columbia.
For more information see:
• Hall v. Boise Alljoist Ltd., 2005 CarswellNB 577 (N.B. Q.B.)
Online bonus
Scott Hall's disciplinary letter
Full text of the letter sent by Boise Alljoist to its plant manager in New Brunswick outlining concerns about his inappropriate behaviour
Scott Hall accepted the job of plant manager at Boise Alljoist Ltd. in St. Jacques, N.B., in August 2001. (The New Brunswick operations are a subsidiary of an American company with head offices in Boise, Idaho.) He was fired on July 29, 2003. He filed a wrongful dismissal suit against the company.
Inappropriate behaviour
Hall moved to New Brunswick from his home in British Columbia, but his wife and child remained in B.C. Shortly after he started, behavioural problems began to surface. In the fall of 2001 a team of auditors went to the plant to conduct a financial and inventory audit.
Sheila Parks, a senior auditor, testified that Hall made her uncomfortable. He did not touch or proposition her, but was very attentive and kept looking at her chest. She also noticed his conduct towards two female employees who were his subordinates. One evening, when a group of employees was going for dinner, Hall said he wanted to sleep with Louise Landry, the plant’s HR co-ordinator.
Jack Jaegar, who was also an auditor, said Hall made comments to him about another female worker. He also said Hall conducted loud conversations in the hallway in which he would publicly criticize employees. Jaegar said he found this unprofessional and obnoxious. He asked around the plant to get the employees’ impressions of Hall. He found “most were afraid of him” and were concerned about job security and his ranting and raving.
The auditors took their concerns about Hall back to head office in Boise. Jaegar told management: “I think we have a problem. Scott’s conduct is out of control.” Larry Henderson, Hall’s supervisor, contacted him, discussed some of the details and let him know the company took it very seriously. Hall said he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong, but that it wouldn’t happen again.
In January 2002 a company executive attended an event at a local restaurant. He also described Hall’s conduct as “out of control.” When he returned to Idaho, he told Henderson, who got in touch with Hall again. Hall was given a copy of the company’s policy against harassment. Henderson briefly went through it with him and specifically talked about “ranting and raving” and treating employees with dignity.
Innuendo rampant
In March 2002 Dawn Blancaflor, assistant general counsel for the company, went to New Brunswick with a team to conduct an environmental audit. She was there for three days and was with Hall about 95 per cent of the time. She said she found his general demeanour towards his staff inappropriate.
On the first day of the audit there was a meeting in a small conference room and there were not enough chairs. Landry, the HR co-ordinator, didn’t have a seat. Hall said, “Don’t worry Louise, come sit on my lap.”
Blancaflor said Hall made sexual allusions all day. She said it went on all the time and was “pervasive.”
A large group went to dinner the first night, including Landry and her boyfriend, who was also an employee. Hall told Landry, in her boyfriend’s presence, that he would like to see her in a mini-skirt with fishnet stockings riding a motorcycle. Landry said her boyfriend was enraged, but she told him to leave it because she was afraid they would lose their jobs.
There was another dinner on the second night of the audit. Hall told Blancaflor he had a surprise for her. This made her uncomfortable, so she went to Hall and told him she didn’t like surprises and didn’t want it.
About 10 people attended the dinner, and the owner of the restaurant came over to her. He was wearing an apron which concealed a fake penis. He revealed the penis “right beside my face,” she said. Hall thought it was funny, but Blancaflor was embarrassed. (Hall denied having arranged this incident, but the court said it preferred Blancaflor's version of the events.)
Hall summoned to Boise
The audit group reported their concerns about Hall to senior management.
The company decided to call him to Idaho for a meeting. He arrived in Boise on April 4, 2002, and met with Henderson and other senior management. Hall was very apologetic and Henderson felt he had learned his lesson. He was given a disciplinary letter.
But problems continued. There was a lot of testimony about Hall’s relationship with the wife of one of his employees. Hall became friends with the worker and his wife, and they went camping and fishing together.
But the worker wasn’t a great employee, and was eventually reprimanded. He phoned a company executive and told him he was under great stress because Hall was taking his wife away from him.
The company confronted Hall about the relationship with the worker’s wife. Hall said it was “purely platonic.” The company accepted his characterization, but spoke with him about the perception in the plant and in the community. Hall agreed the relationship was inappropriate because of how others perceived it.
Henderson and another company executive were surprised at Hall’s conduct in light of the earlier discussions they had with him about his behaviour.
The HR co-ordinator
Landry testified extensively at trial. She resigned her position with the company in November 2002 because she couldn’t deal with Hall anymore.
She began working at Boise at the end of 2000 as health and safety co-ordinator. Hall promoted her to HR co-ordinator a couple of months after he arrived. She received complaints from people in the mill about his behaviour, but was afraid she would be fired if she passed them along.
Landry described a trip she took with Hall to Fredericton for an arbitration. On the way back, he said that people in their positions — plant manager and HR co-ordinator — often have affairs. He said he had only had one woman in his life, and wanted to know about her experience. Landry was very uncomfortable with the conversation. (At trial, Hall claimed Landry had asked him to have sex, and he had refused, but the court didn’t believe him.)
After Hall was disciplined, she said his behaviour became abusive. He avoided her and was always slamming doors. He alluded to the possibility that it was her fault. At one point he gave her a letter in which he accused her of being late, not completing assignments, not being honest and lacking integrity. He later apologized and told her to throw the letter out.
The court said Hall wasn’t a very believable witness and discounted almost everything he said.
Hall tried to argue that things are different in Canada, and that his conduct was acceptable north of the border even if it offended his supervisor’s “little morality code.”
Confusing bullying with leadership
Hall was either unaware that his conduct embarrassed and intimidated others or didn’t care, the court said.
“It appears that Hall thought his treatment of the employees was acceptable. It was not,” the court said. “In many instances Hall’s conduct was a gross and gratuitous abuse of his power. He controlled the men under his supervision by screaming, swearing and threatening them, and he controlled the women by embarrassing and humiliating them. He confused bullying with leadership.”
The employer was justified in firing Hall for cause, the court said. If the company did not have cause, the court would have awarded him nine months’ notice plus moving expenses back to British Columbia.
For more information see:
• Hall v. Boise Alljoist Ltd., 2005 CarswellNB 577 (N.B. Q.B.)
Online bonus
Scott Hall's disciplinary letter
Full text of the letter sent by Boise Alljoist to its plant manager in New Brunswick outlining concerns about his inappropriate behaviour
