Lying About Office Romance Leads to Termination

Brian Bell

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell: Since we probably spend at least half of our time with our office colleagues, it shouldn't come as a shock when we hear of an office romance. Just a word of warning to the romantics: be careful. Depending on the circumstances, an office romance can cost you your job.

This example involving a manager named Bryan Reichard, and his subordinate Ms. Thompson, is worth a look.

The company was Kuntz Electroplating Inc., and they were astute enough to recognize that office romances happen.  In an attempt to manage such situations, they developed a non-fraternization policy for staff to follow.

While the company did not forbid office romances outright, they did require an employee to advise upper management if they entered into a romance with another worker. The company wished to be made aware of such relationships for operational and Human Rights reasons, such as possible sexual harassment claims, or accusations of favouritism.

In the Reichard case, the company confronted him with the rumour that he was involved in a romantic relationship with a subordinate. Reichard denied the claim, and continued to deny it on several other occasions. He was married, which likely had something to do with his denials. When he was confronted a final time by his superiors, he finally came clean and said that yes, he was involved with a co-worker. When management suspended him and told him not to come back to the office until further notice, he returned to the office twice, in direct violation of their orders.

The employer ultimately terminated Reichard, and the Court supported the employer’s position.  The Court felt that Reichard's deliberate and continuous lying to the employer amounted to Willful Misconduct, calling into question "the trust, integrity and honesty required of him." Said the court: 

While the married Reichard certainly put himself between a rock and a hard place because of the affair, he compounded his problems significantly by deliberately and continuously lying to Kuntz and then deliberately and willfully disobeying orders from his superior.

This outcome gives both the employee and employer things to consider.  The employer should have a policy about office romances and what conduct is considered acceptable. The employees should be aware of what the policy says, and be prepared to follow that policy.

The Reichard case makes it clear: don't lie about an office romance if you are required to disclose it. The romance itself might not get you fired, but lying about it could.

What To Do When An Employee Says, "I Quit."

Brian Bell

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell - So, you are a manager of a mid-sized company and it has been one of those days. Everything that could go wrong, has.  Sometime during the day, one of your sales people comes into your office with just another “lame excuse." You challenge what the sales person is saying.  The conversation gets heated, and voices get louder. Within minutes, the sales person states that they do not deserve to be treated like this. They finish by saying, "I quit," and then walk out of the office.

Question: Has this person truly resigned?

I recently encountered a situation similar to the one above.  Employers beware: resignations given in the heat of the moment may not be upheld in a hearing.

Resignations that are upheld are generally supported by a resignation letter. Such a letter will help confirm that an employee gave considerable thought to leaving employment.

In the case I was dealing with, the employee, in the heat of the moment, said he was quitting right then and there.  No resignation letter was provided at the time, nor was one to follow.

When this type of thing happens, the employer should proceed with caution. Before taking the employee's word for it that they have quit, the first thing you should do is give everyone - yourself included - a few days to cool off. Then wait to see if the employee contacts you. In a lot of cases, when the parties calm down, the employee could very well rescind their “resignation,” and they are allowed to do so.

In the case I was involved with, three to four days had passed with no contact from the employee.  I then advised the employer to confirm in writing with the employee that since we had neither received a letter, nor heard from the employee, we were concluding that their oral resignation was valid and all appropriate documents would be forwarded to the former employee as required. That is where the case ended.

It doesn't always work out that way. For a peek at how things can turn out poorly for you if you take an angry conversation as a resignation, you should look at this case from BC. In it, an employee laid his company keys on the table, wished the company luck, and walked. Sounds like a resignation, doesn't it? Not so fast. Read the article and see what the judge decided.

Taking the necessary steps to confirm and reaffirm the actions of the former employee are sure to reduce the risk of problems for the future.

Busted For Lying On A Resume

It should go without saying not to lie on your CV, but here's a piece about resume cheating that should remind everyone to think twice before they do it:

After just four months on the job, Yahoo! CEO Scott Thompson is out of work this week after it was discovered he had lied on his resume.

While his resume boasts 1978 degrees in both accounting and computer science from Massachusetts' Stonehill College, Thompson has since admitted he never earned the latter.

Thompson isn't alone. Here's six more stories of execs who were busted for lying on their resumes.

You Can Be Fired For Facebook Postings

Brian Bell

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell - The growth of social media has provided a vehicle for some individuals to vent their frustrations on a lot of issues, including stuff that happens in the workplace. But take heed: there is no immunity in using social media to voice workplace displeasure.

A recent case involving a Canada Post employee and Facebook is a good example:

The woman had been given a three-day suspension without pay after being part of a confrontation between older workers and a younger supervisor.

Later, the company discovered a series of Facebook postings by the employee that included derogatory statements about her supervisors and Canada Post. She claimed she had a voodoo doll of one manager and also if she hadn't been drinking she would "take her out on the driveway and run her over," according to the ruling.

The posts were sent to more than 50 Facebook friends, including some co-workers, The Star reported.

Bad move.

Social media can give individuals the unjustified confidence that they can say anything they wish under the protection of privacy. They can't.

In this case, the employee was terminated for the comments. Her union - the Canadian Union of Postal Workers - grieved on the basis that she was a long tenured employee and close to retirement. The Union’s position was that some lesser form of discipline might better suit the circumstances, given the employee’s age and service.

The arbitrator considered these issues, but felt that the lack of remorse displayed by the woman, and her attitude in general, outweighed any factors for leniency.

Everyone needs to be aware. Social media can give individuals the unjustified confidence that they can say anything they wish under the protection of privacy. They can't.

Before posting something online, a question one might ask is, “Would I say the same thing to my supervisor if I were talking to them face to face?" Probably not. As a result of thinking falsely that she was untouchable, this employee did lose her job, and the arbitrator upheld the termination.

Social media does not remove the responsibilities an employee has toward their employer and their supervisor. I agree with the arbitrator’s decision in this case.

In short, take care and be aware, and if in doubt: don't post it online.

Changes Coming to Employment Insurance?

It looks like there may be some changes coming to Employment Insurance. A taste from the CBC:

Finance Minster Jim Flaherty. Photo: CBC

The omnibus budget bill making its way through Parliament makes changes to the Employment Insurance Act, including how suitable employment is defined and determined.

"There’ll be a broader definition and people will have to engage more in the work force," Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters on May 14.

Right now, people who become unemployed and who have paid into the Employment Insurance system can collect benefits for a length of time that varies depending on the region where they live. But they must also look for a new job, and start work if something suitable becomes available.

Catch more here.

Some Notes on Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace

Toronto Employment Lawyer Brian Bell - Regarding the alcohol testing case currently headed for the Supreme Court, this type of thing has been an issue for years. I recall cases within the financial industry where institutions wanted to test employees for substance abuse, and ultimately the action was thrown out - primarily because of the answer to one question: is the testing necessary for the job (i.e. safety concerns)?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the next issue is whether the company’s testing program is too invasive. Ultimately, a blanket yes to testing has the potential for a very slippery slope.

In the current testing case, the company’s position is that testing is necessary for safety reasons, and given this article's content, I would agree.

I would also agree with the unions who say such a policy is not required where it infringes excessively on the rights of the workers. An additional valid point is whether there has to be an “incident” before an employer can introduce such a policy to protect other workers as well as themselves.

It remains unclear where the line should be drawn, and the Supreme Court will have to determine whether a line needs to be drawn at all. I'm looking forward to the outcome of the case.

Should Random Alcohol Tests Be Allowed in the Workplace?

Testing?

Here's a look at an interesting case that's heading to the Supreme Court. At issue is whether unionized workers should have to face random alcohol tests:

It’s a fight that began with one pulp-and-paper mill worker in Saint John, and a “zero” reading on a breath-analysis alcohol test six years ago. Now, it is headed to Canada’s highest court. 

The case, which pits the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 30 against Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., is being watched closely by employment lawyers across Canada, who say it could have broad implications.

Read the rest of the story here.