Worker sent company on a wild goose chase, refused to stop investigating what she thought was fraudulent behaviour
You’re only a ‘whistle blower’ if there’s a solid basis for your claims of wrongdoing.
Snezana Mitrovic joined Pella Windows and Doors in February 2002 as an assistant in the finance department headed by Brenda Smith.
Less than three months later she was dismissed. She filed an action seeking $400,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. She claimed she told her superiors of extensive fraud in the company and was fired as a result.
The general manager of Pella testified that in March Mitrovic told him Smith had masterminded a $300,000 fraud against the company. He said he told Mitrovic to follow up and provided her with the information she said she needed to prove the allegation. The information proved, however, that the money had been properly deposited to the company.
The general manager said Mitrovic then asked for information on 10 company accounts. When these reconciled Mitrovic insisted Smith had engaged in wrongdoing but was very clever and covered it up.
By then Mitrovic had fallen behind in her regular duties. The company had spent a considerable amount of time and effort on the allegations which had proved groundless. The atmosphere at the relatively small office had been poisoned. In mid-April Mitrovic was told she had to stop reviewing old records and focus on her day-to-day duties.
Less than two weeks later, the general manager said, it became clear Mitrovic had ignored his instructions. At a staff meeting she said she had done month-end bookkeeping when she had not. Shortly thereafter he returned from a meeting and was told Mitrovic had started an altercation in the office. That’s when he decided to terminate her employment.
In court Mitrovic conceded her first two allegations of fraud were made in error, but said after that she gave the general manager facts which proved Smith and another person at Pella’s head office was guilty of fraud. This was established because the head office’s financial statement was the same as Pella’s, she said. She called a number of witnesses whose evidence, she said, substantiated her view.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected her claims. There was no evidence which suggested fraud, it concluded, and yet Mitrovic insisted she was right about them. When documents established the absence of fraud she took it as evidence of wider fraud. This supported the company’s claim that Mitrovic was dismissed for cause, it ruled.
Mitrovic appeared to have become fixated on the notion that Brenda Smith committed fraud, and she was unable to let go when instructed to concentrate on her regular duties. This made it impossible for Pella to continue to retain her as Smith’s assistant.
Mitrovic saw herself as a ‘whistle-blower’ who has a duty to speak and investigate the truth even if her superiors deny it. But whistle-blowers who make false allegations and are incapable of acknowledging they may have erred are not in the same category as those who have some basis for their beliefs, the court noted.
For more information see:
• Mitrovic v. Pella Windows & Doors, 2005 CarswellOnt 4381 (Ont. S.C.J.)
Snezana Mitrovic joined Pella Windows and Doors in February 2002 as an assistant in the finance department headed by Brenda Smith.
Less than three months later she was dismissed. She filed an action seeking $400,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. She claimed she told her superiors of extensive fraud in the company and was fired as a result.
The general manager of Pella testified that in March Mitrovic told him Smith had masterminded a $300,000 fraud against the company. He said he told Mitrovic to follow up and provided her with the information she said she needed to prove the allegation. The information proved, however, that the money had been properly deposited to the company.
The general manager said Mitrovic then asked for information on 10 company accounts. When these reconciled Mitrovic insisted Smith had engaged in wrongdoing but was very clever and covered it up.
By then Mitrovic had fallen behind in her regular duties. The company had spent a considerable amount of time and effort on the allegations which had proved groundless. The atmosphere at the relatively small office had been poisoned. In mid-April Mitrovic was told she had to stop reviewing old records and focus on her day-to-day duties.
Less than two weeks later, the general manager said, it became clear Mitrovic had ignored his instructions. At a staff meeting she said she had done month-end bookkeeping when she had not. Shortly thereafter he returned from a meeting and was told Mitrovic had started an altercation in the office. That’s when he decided to terminate her employment.
In court Mitrovic conceded her first two allegations of fraud were made in error, but said after that she gave the general manager facts which proved Smith and another person at Pella’s head office was guilty of fraud. This was established because the head office’s financial statement was the same as Pella’s, she said. She called a number of witnesses whose evidence, she said, substantiated her view.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected her claims. There was no evidence which suggested fraud, it concluded, and yet Mitrovic insisted she was right about them. When documents established the absence of fraud she took it as evidence of wider fraud. This supported the company’s claim that Mitrovic was dismissed for cause, it ruled.
Mitrovic appeared to have become fixated on the notion that Brenda Smith committed fraud, and she was unable to let go when instructed to concentrate on her regular duties. This made it impossible for Pella to continue to retain her as Smith’s assistant.
Mitrovic saw herself as a ‘whistle-blower’ who has a duty to speak and investigate the truth even if her superiors deny it. But whistle-blowers who make false allegations and are incapable of acknowledging they may have erred are not in the same category as those who have some basis for their beliefs, the court noted.
For more information see:
• Mitrovic v. Pella Windows & Doors, 2005 CarswellOnt 4381 (Ont. S.C.J.)