Facility failed to provide employee explanation for dismissal
After a coworker accused a Swift Current, Sask., continuing-care assistant (CCA) of harassment, the CCA was promptly fired.
Nancy Arat was hired on May 10, 2016, at the Meadow Long-Term Care Centre, a long-term care facility.
On Oct. 27, Arat attended a meeting with Renee Hovdestad, health services manager, and Shannon Frederick, labour-relations consultant, for the employer, the Saskatchewan Health Authority.
Arat was told after the meeting that she was being suspended immediately. On Nov. 2, Arat was terminated as a probationary employee “for reasons of general unsuitability as per the terms of the collective bargaining agreement article 10.01c,” according to the termination letter.
But on Nov. 7, Arat and the union, the Service Employees International Union/ SEIU-WEST, filed a grievance. “I am not on probation as I have passed 480 hours,” wrote Arat in a letter.
However, it was determined Arat worked only 467.3 hours, which meant she was a probationary employee when she was fired.
The basis of the complaint against Arat came from CCA Smita Ranjit who told Marla Foster, social worker, on Oct. 24 that Arat had bullied her. As well, Ranjit said Arat didn’t provide any information to her during shift handoffs, she didn’t help Ranjit when asked, and Arat threatened to deny any complaints and be backed up by Arat’s husband, who also worked at the Meadow facility.
Each of the claims were denied by Arat during the arbitration hearing.
When Arat was asked to attend the meeting with Hovdestad and Frederick, she was not told why it was called. Sharon Farrell, union representative, also didn’t advise Arat due to privacy concerns.
Arat was dismissed without ever knowing the reasons why, said the union.
Arbitrator Neil Robertson (backed by Andrew Huculak, but dissented by Terry Steininger) upheld the grievance and ordered the employee to be reinstated “subject to an extension of the period of probation for 320 hours; not to be placed in a house in which Smita Ranjit is working; and entitled to compensation from the employer for lost income, excluding any potential overtime she might have earned at the Meadows and any income earned beyond full-time hours since her dismissal. If (Arat) is required to repay employment-insurance benefits, that amount should be included in the compensation paid by the employer to ensure (Arat) remains whole.”
The arbitrator found that an employer was usually justified in terminating a probationary employee for unsuitableness, but not in this case.
“The board does not find that the employer acted in bad faith or was discriminatory. Nothing was established in evidence to show any improper motive or animus on the part of the decision-makers towards (Arat) for some irrelevant reason. We accept that the managers honestly believed in the allegations,” said Robertson.
But the employer didn’t include further examination after speaking to Arat and Ranjit, which was improper, said the arbitrator.
“The failure to inform Arat of the nature of the complaint and allow her an opportunity to respond before deciding whether to release her constitutes arbitrariness,” said Robertson.
“While the managers were entitled to believe Ranjit over Arat, elemental fairness required that Arat be given the chance to defend herself. Had Arat been given this opportunity, she may have raised a doubt which caused the employer to do further investigation, such as questioning other co-workers to seek confirmation of Ranjit’s allegations. That opportunity was lost by this omission.”
Reference: Saskatchewan Health Authority andService Employees International Union/ SEIU-WEST. Neil Robertson — arbitrator. Jana Linner for the employer. Larry Dawson for the employee. Nov. 12, 2018.
Nancy Arat was hired on May 10, 2016, at the Meadow Long-Term Care Centre, a long-term care facility.
On Oct. 27, Arat attended a meeting with Renee Hovdestad, health services manager, and Shannon Frederick, labour-relations consultant, for the employer, the Saskatchewan Health Authority.
Arat was told after the meeting that she was being suspended immediately. On Nov. 2, Arat was terminated as a probationary employee “for reasons of general unsuitability as per the terms of the collective bargaining agreement article 10.01c,” according to the termination letter.
But on Nov. 7, Arat and the union, the Service Employees International Union/ SEIU-WEST, filed a grievance. “I am not on probation as I have passed 480 hours,” wrote Arat in a letter.
However, it was determined Arat worked only 467.3 hours, which meant she was a probationary employee when she was fired.
The basis of the complaint against Arat came from CCA Smita Ranjit who told Marla Foster, social worker, on Oct. 24 that Arat had bullied her. As well, Ranjit said Arat didn’t provide any information to her during shift handoffs, she didn’t help Ranjit when asked, and Arat threatened to deny any complaints and be backed up by Arat’s husband, who also worked at the Meadow facility.
Each of the claims were denied by Arat during the arbitration hearing.
When Arat was asked to attend the meeting with Hovdestad and Frederick, she was not told why it was called. Sharon Farrell, union representative, also didn’t advise Arat due to privacy concerns.
Arat was dismissed without ever knowing the reasons why, said the union.
Arbitrator Neil Robertson (backed by Andrew Huculak, but dissented by Terry Steininger) upheld the grievance and ordered the employee to be reinstated “subject to an extension of the period of probation for 320 hours; not to be placed in a house in which Smita Ranjit is working; and entitled to compensation from the employer for lost income, excluding any potential overtime she might have earned at the Meadows and any income earned beyond full-time hours since her dismissal. If (Arat) is required to repay employment-insurance benefits, that amount should be included in the compensation paid by the employer to ensure (Arat) remains whole.”
The arbitrator found that an employer was usually justified in terminating a probationary employee for unsuitableness, but not in this case.
“The board does not find that the employer acted in bad faith or was discriminatory. Nothing was established in evidence to show any improper motive or animus on the part of the decision-makers towards (Arat) for some irrelevant reason. We accept that the managers honestly believed in the allegations,” said Robertson.
But the employer didn’t include further examination after speaking to Arat and Ranjit, which was improper, said the arbitrator.
“The failure to inform Arat of the nature of the complaint and allow her an opportunity to respond before deciding whether to release her constitutes arbitrariness,” said Robertson.
“While the managers were entitled to believe Ranjit over Arat, elemental fairness required that Arat be given the chance to defend herself. Had Arat been given this opportunity, she may have raised a doubt which caused the employer to do further investigation, such as questioning other co-workers to seek confirmation of Ranjit’s allegations. That opportunity was lost by this omission.”
Reference: Saskatchewan Health Authority andService Employees International Union/ SEIU-WEST. Neil Robertson — arbitrator. Jana Linner for the employer. Larry Dawson for the employee. Nov. 12, 2018.
