By Ian Campbell
There seems to have been an increase in cases where employees in Canada directly or publicly have challenged their supervisors or senior management. Maybe this is because of an increasing belief in their actual or perceived rights.
Of course employees have the right and should be encouraged to raise legitimate workplace concerns in appropriate circumstances. But recent decisions have confirmed that it’s not acceptable for employees to do so in a manner that is either disrespectful or unfairly undermines management’s integrity or reputation.
As a recent decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia confirms, when employees cross this line, it can provide the basis for disciplinary action. In extreme cases, it can mean termination.
Facts
In Grewal v. Khalsa Credit Union, the relationship between the CEO and Sukhwinder K. Grewal, one of the credit union’s branch managers, had become strained. Grewal was a long-service employee. While her performance reviews were generally positive, she had been effectively demoted on two occasions. The CEO had written to her on several occasions about significant concerns with various aspects of her work.
Apparent irregularities with the renewal of Grewal’s personal mortgage then came to light. The CEO initiated an investigation. Before she could be interviewed, Grewal left work on an unrelated leave of absence. The investigation continued upon her return to work, 10 months later.
After interviewing Grewal and before any disciplinary action was taken, the CEO received a letter from her lawyer, demanding a written apology. The letter also demanded formal acknowledgment that the CEO had acted in bad faith in making baseless allegations about both the renewal of her personal mortgage and her past performance issues.
The letter demanded that the CEO promise to refrain from such conduct in the future. It asserted that the apology must be copied to both the employer’s board of directors and a government official, the deputy superintendent of credit unions and trusts. A second letter, containing similar demands, followed a few days later. Grewal later sued the credit union, alleging she had been wrongfully dismissed.
Decision
While the court had some concerns about the quality of the investigation into the renewal of the mortgage, it concluded that the probe was both appropriate and justified. It found the allegations contained in the letters issued by Grewal’s lawyer to be baseless. They made the continuation of the employment relationship untenable.
The letters, when combined with Grewal’s past misconduct, were found to justify her being dismissed for cause despite her long service.
The court’s decision turned on not only the content of the letters themselves, but the fact that the employee’s counsel thought it appropriate to send copies to the employer’s board of directors and the deputy superintendent of credit unions and trusts. The letters were found to be both disrespectful and inflammatory. They constituted a deliberate effort to permanently damage the CEO’s reputation.
Takeaway for employers
It can be both difficult and time-consuming to deal with employees making allegations about inappropriate conduct on management’s part. Employers must exercise great care in responding to these concerns in a careful and considered fashion. But they don’t necessarily have to stand for employees who make unfounded allegations of inappropriate conduct by management. Nor must employers keep employees who choose (directly or through lawyers) to express themselves in a manner that unfairly undermines the reputation of the company or its management.
