The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Arbitration Cases: Dishonesty & Incompetence Not Always Just Cause for Dismissal

by David Doorey May 17, 2011
written by David Doorey May 17, 2011

We are about to talk about rules of dismissal and discharge in unionized environments in my summer course. So I am reviving my Arbitration Cases series in which I summarize in case study format recently released arbitration awards.

Last week, Arbitrator Stout released his award in a discharge case involving Women’s College Hospital and SEIU, Local 1.
 
Key Facts:
The Grievor (GR) was 51 years old and had 29 years’ seniority.   Her job involved booking clinic appointments.  She had difficulty adapting to a new management system introduced in 2009, and soon began falling behind on appointment bookings and reporting late to work.  Nurses began to complain about slow booking times.  In December 2009, the GR was given a warning letter setting out how she was required to improve.  The GR came under closer scrutiny after that.  In early January 2010, the GR told her supervisor that all appointments had been properly booked when in fact two had not.  On Jan. 10, the GR was given a formal Verbal Warning, addressing the lateness issue, poor work performance, and dishonesty in regards to the two bookings that had not been made.  In late July 2010, the GR left for a vacation leaving some 33 unbooked appointments.  She did not advise the ER until August 10th, when she emailed to advise about the unscheduled appointments.  The GR claimed she had computer problems on her last day of work and was unable to get the bookings done.  She claimed she intended to come in the morning of her flight to complete the work, but she had a headache and was unable to come to work.  When the GR returned from holiday she was dismissed for breach of confidentiality, neglect of duties, and breach of trust.
The Issue
Did the Employer have just cause to dismiss the Grievor?
The Decision
The Employer emphasized the Grievor’s dishonesty in covering up unbooked appointments and leaving on vacation without telling the ER about a backlog of appointments.  According to the Employer, “The dishonesty was intentional and repetitive, including the falsification of records.”   The Union conceded that some discipline was warranted, but argued that discharge was too extreme in all of the circumstances.
Arbitrator Stout sided with the Union and reinstated the Grievor with what amounted to about an 8 month unpaid suspension without loss of seniority.
According to the Arbitrator, while dishonesty and poor work performance are serious,

not all acts of dishonesty give rise to a break down in the employment relationship. Each case of dishonesty must be examined in context, weighing both aggravating and mitigating factors to determine if just cause exists and if discretion ought to be exercised to substitute a lesser penalty for discharge

In this case, the misconduct was “not an act of  hardened criminality devised for financial gain”.   Rather, the GR was dishonest because she was trying to avoid embarrassment and further discipline.   The Employer suffered no loss.  The Grievor acknowledged her wrongs, apologized, and expressed regret.  Given her very long service record, and the fact the Arbitrator believed the GR had learned her lesson, reinstatement was appropriate:

I believe the grievor has learned a very hard lesson and a time served suspension will deter any similar behavior in the future. I am also satisfied that the trust between the grievor and Hospital can be restored. The grievor should now fully appreciate that any further dishonest conduct will surely result in discharge and no arbitrator would be inclined to provide any further chance at redemption.

Conclusions and Questions
1.   Do you agree with this outcome?
2.   How important do you think it was for the Arbitrator that the employee admitted her mistake and apologized at the hearing?
3.    If this was a nonunion employer, the ER would have been entitled to dismiss the EE.  The only question would have been whether he dishonesty and misconduct was sufficient to amount to cause for Summary Dismissal (dismissal without notice).  The employee would not be reinstated into a nonunion setting, even if it was determined that the employer did not have cause for summary dismissal.
Which model do you think strikes a fairer balance between the interests of the employer and the employee?
 

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
No "Tort of Privacy" at Work. But is there a Contractual Right to Privacy at Work?
next post
Call for Contributions to the Geoffrey England Employment Law Scholarship

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
17h

A Nationwide Bargaining Unit to Fight Starbucks Is a Moon Shot Worth Trying

My latest on ⁦@jacobin⁩. https://jacobin.com/2022/08/starbucks-service-unions-nlrb-law-centralized-bargaining/

Reply on Twitter 1556339370461786112Retweet on Twitter 15563393704617861122Like on Twitter 155633937046178611211Twitter 1556339370461786112
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
20h

Luck is part of it for sure. Right time right place. True of a lot of jobs not just academia.

But in my experience sitting on lots of academic hiring committees, people selected have superior CVs. 60 applicants, one position. Not all luck. It’s a very competitive job market.

David Webster@dwebsterhist

I've been hired for 2 tenure track jobs and been on multiple committees, sent in more than 100 job applications, and done multiple interviews. Here is my thread 🛢
of job market advice for early career academics based on decades of experience:

1. Get lucky.

Reply on Twitter 1556285407817506817Retweet on Twitter 1556285407817506817Like on Twitter 15562854078175068171Twitter 1556285407817506817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6 Aug

Sunflowers!

Reply on Twitter 1556032894640037890Retweet on Twitter 1556032894640037890Like on Twitter 15560328946400378905Twitter 1556032894640037890
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.