Disciplined first for inappropriately copying an e-mail challenging the actions of a supervisor to all his colleagues, a Child Protection Worker was later suspended and then terminated for conducting an investigation that violated his agency’s policies on confidentiality and conflict of interest.
Employed since 2006 by a child welfare services agency in Northern Ontario, Child Protection Worker R.R. received performance evaluations that rated his job performance as both “good” and “excellent.”
As a condition of employment, he swore an oath of secrecy and was required to uphold agency policies on conflict of interest and confidentiality. Agency protocols also specified that cases or investigations involving staff were to be handled by outside agencies where possible or internally by a supervisor or director.
Strained relationship
In 2009 evidence of strained relationship with an agency supervisor surfaced when R.R. distributed an e-mail to colleagues that questioned the actions of the supervisor.
Earning a verbal reprimand for that breach, R.R. was later terminated for inappropriately conducting an investigation into allegations of family violence concerning the same supervisor’s husband (a police officer) and one of her daughters.
R.R. and the supervisor were on duty at the local Ontario Provincial Police detachment in Moosonee on the evening of August 25, 2009 when a call came in from a distraught girl. The supervisor acknowledged that the call came from her house, and police were in attendance at the house when R.R. dropped the supervisor off at the end of the shift.
The following day R.R. received a phone call from his sister who reported details and allegations of what went on in the house as told to her by the elder sister of the caller. Based on that information, R.R. made a case note and forwarded it to the agency’s intake person instead of forwarding it to a supervisor as was required.
Inappropriate consultations with co-workers
Following an initial attempt to raise a supervisor, R.R. then compounded his mistake by consulting with co-workers about the case who advised him to call the police — which he did. Following a heated conversation with police, R.R. then picked up the elder sister from the supervisor’s house and took her to his house where he asked her to write out a statement detailing what had happened. R.R.’s sister — a friend of the girl — was in attendance.
Suspended pending an investigation into the matter, R.R. was terminated by letter on September 9, 2009. The letter charged R.R. with inappropriately handling a referral concerning a staff member and conducting an investigation in an inappropriate manner and then discussing the matter with co-workers.
Clear conflict
While the union grieved the termination, the arbitrator upheld the employer’s action. From the beginning, the arbitrator said, R.R. knew — or should have known — that the matter should have been immediately referred to a supervisor: “Further, the fact that the information came from his own sister and involved a friend clearly created a conflict.”
Moreover, the evidence of a strained relationship between R.R. and the supervisor compounded the appearance of a conflict and made R.R. “an unacceptable person to engage in any action after receiving the call from his sister.”
Clearly skeptical of R.R.’s motives, the arbitrator questioned his actions in leaving the child who made the call to police alone in the home while he removed her adult sister to make a statement. This action was inconsistent, the arbitrator said, with “any immediate child protection concern.” Given the context, the arbitrator said, “it is also reasonable to conclude that the grievor was more interested in obtaining information to support a complaint against [the supervisor’s] husband than following proper procedures, including protecting the confidentiality of the clients.”
The employer made out its case for termination, the arbitrator said and the grievance was dismissed.
Reference: Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Services and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4313. John Stout – Sole Arbitrator. Chris Eames for the Employer and Jo-Ann Breton for the Union. December 4, 2009. 18 pp.
