Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Finance), 2006 42776 (ON GSB) 2006-‐12-‐18 GSB# 2004-‐3113 UNION# 2004-‐0599-‐0008 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Mehan) Union -‐ and -‐ The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Finance) Employer
BEFORE Owen V. Gray Vice-‐Chair FOR THE UNION Peter Shklanka Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Simon Heath Counsel Ministry of Government Services HEARING October 26, November 4 & 30, 2005; April 10 & 11, May 24 & 25, September 27, 2006. Decision
[1] Neeru Meehan, now known as Neeru Sharma, was employed by the Ministry of Finance from late 1997 to October 5, 2004. During all but the first year or so of that period, she was employed as a retail sales tax auditor. In 2004 the employer learned that the academic credentials on which she had obtained the tax auditor position were fraudulent. It concluded not only that she knew and had concealed this fact but also that she had maliciously accused her manager of workplace harassment in an attempt to keep it concealed. By letter dated October 5, 2006, it discharged her: Dear Ms. Sharma: You have been suspended with pay since May 14, 2004 pending the outcome of an investigation into the veracity of your accounting credentials. In addition, you have been provided with a response from the Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Revenue Division, dated July 29, 2004, outlining the findings of the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) complaint you filed on September 13, 2003, in which you alleged that a Regional Audit Manager had engaged in malicious effort to falsely call into question your educational credentials. With respect to your educational credentials, we received a letter from the University of Delhi dated April 12, 2004, advising us that the documents you submitted to support your contention that you met the qualifications of the Tax Auditor 2 position are not authentic. In your letter to me, dated July 5, 2004, you stated that you do not dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the letter from the University of Delhi. Accordingly, you have admitted that you have provided the Ministry with false documentation as to your educational qualifications from the date you were hired and hence you do not possess the requisite educational credentials to fulfil the duties of a Tax Auditor 2. Your production of false documentation in the first instance and your continued deception thereafter is a serious breach of trust and loyalty owed to the employer. With respect to your WDHP claim, the investigation found that all of the allegations raised by you were unsubstantiated, made maliciously and in bad faith. Your admission that your credentials were false, fully corroborates the conclusions drawn in the WDHP investigation and demonstrates your conscious efforts to conceal your deceit. The pursuance of false and malicious WDHP claims are not tolerated under any circumstances as they contribute towards creating poisoned work environments. You have asked me to consider your misconduct in the light of the circumstances surrounding your life at the time; that of being in an abusive relationship. You further stated that while you participated in providing false credentials, you sincerely regret your participation and that your actions were involuntary. In addition, you recently provided me with medical evidence to highlight your marital
problems and associated abusive relationship with your husband. I have considered all the information provided by yourself and find that you consciously deceived the Ministry as to your credentials. Your marital relationship may have contributed to your initial deception but your continued deception until July 5th 2004 was at your own volition. To further elaborate, you may have been coerced by your husband in providing false credentials at the time of hiring, however you continued the deception by writing a letter, dated May 8, 2000 to the Selection Board of a Tax Auditor 4 competition stating that you met all the academic requirements of the position and questioned why you did not receive an interview. In addition, you filed a WDHP complaint claiming that management were unjustifiable looking into your credentials. You were separated from our husband and fully aware that your credentials were false. Having regard to all the circumstances, I believe that you have not provided me with reasonable explanation for your continued deception and hence you have seriously breached the trust and loyalty owed to your employer. Your misconduct is considered serious, warranting a dismissal. Accordingly, pursuant to section 22(3) of the Public Service Act, I hereby dismiss you from employment for just cause, effective October 5, 2004. Please contact me to make mutual arrangements to pick up your personal effects. If you prefer, this can be done after hours. Please be advised that, you may file a grievance pursuant to Article 22 of the OPSEU active Agreement. Yours truly, John Anderson Director North York Tax Office [2] She then grieved that My dismissal from employment on October 5, 2004 was without just cause. I have repeatedly explained the circumstances surrounding the allegations against me however management has not taken any of them into account when carrying out their disciplinary action against me. The WDHP report indicated in my dismissal letter was biased and did not take into account the full circumstances. In her grievance she asked that she “be placed in a position in the Ministry of Finance appropriate for my educational background and work experience.”
[3] When hiring tax auditors at the TA2 level, the employer will only consider individuals who have attained certain educational qualifications relating to accounting and auditing. The same was true when the grievor became a tax auditor at that level (then FO2) in 1998. The grievor did not then have the qualifications required. She does not now have the qualifications required. The union does not challenge the propriety of those past and current requirements. It does not contend that the grievor should be reinstated as a tax auditor. Its position is that in the particular circumstances of her case the employer should have put her in some other position for which she was qualified, and that I should now do that. [4] In these proceedings the employer did not seek to prove that the grievor acted maliciously and in bad faith in filing her Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (“WDHP”) complaint in September 2003. It relied on the grievor’s having obtained her job on the basis of false credentials and concealed the false nature of those credentials as just cause for discharge. The Evidence [5] The grievor testified that she came to Canada from India in late 1984, after completing high school and one year of university in a Bachelor of Commerce program. In 1987 she married Varinder Mehan, a man she had met before she emigrated to Canada, and she sponsored his immigration to Canada. Mr. Mehan is said to have had a Chartered Accountant designation from India. In 1994 he became an employee of the Ministry of Revenue. By the time the grievor first sought work with that Ministry he had become a manager in one of its Toronto area offices. [6] The grievor’s first job with the Ministry was as a junior service representative in the North York office. She got the job in November 1997, after mentioning to someone at a social event that she was interested in employment. She says there was no written application. It was a contract job. After she got the job she started looking for permanent positions. For this she needed a resume. She told her husband this and, she says, he prepared the first of “many” resumes for her. [7] In February 1998 the Ministry received an application from the grievor (prepared and submitted, she says, by her husband) for an Administrative Support Clerk position in the North York office on a twelve month contract. That application was successful: she was awarded the job. The resume that accompanied that application stated that the grievor had obtained a Bachelor of Commerce degree in 1983. That was not true. The grievor testified that she had only completed one year of a B.Comm. program. The employment history recited in that resume included employment as an administrative clerk with Royal International Trading Co. Inc. from July 1990 to December 1992 and as an accounting clerk with Pryanka Inc. from September 1997 to November 1997. Those statements were not true. She had not worked for either of those companies. She says they had been clients of her husband’s in his private accounting practice. The grievor remembers that before she went to a job interview her husband told her that he had put those companies
(Royal and Pryanka) in the resume and that she should remember them. She also remembers that some time after the application was submitted her husband told her “for future job they do need degree and I put it there.” [8] In November 1998 the grievor was awarded a Field Officer (FO2) position in the North York office doing retail sales tax audits. There would have been an application of some kind for this job, but it is not before me. It is not clear what resume accompanied that application. Counsel agreed, however, that the application included or was accompanied by a statement of marks from the University of Delhi purporting to attest that the grievor had completed the third year and final year of a B. Comm. program in 1985. [9] The grievor recalls going to a job interview for the FO2 job. She remembers that before she did that her husband prepared something and asked her to sign a letter, but says she had nothing to do with submitting an application or the accompanying statement of marks. She recalls that before the interview her husband told her what questions would be asked and what answers to give. He also told her to remember to say she worked for those companies that she had not actually worked for. She remembers being told she got the job, and going to work in the new job. When it was put to her in cross-‐examination that she knew she did not have the qualifications for it when she started the job, her answer was “no, I thought whatever he was doing was right.” [10] Like other such jobs in the Ministry, the grievor’s FO2 job was reclassified as a TA2 position not long after she got it. [11] In September 1999 the grievor took certain documents to York University. One was the purported transcript of marks obtained by “Neeru Sharma” in a B.Comm. program at the University of Delhi. There was also a transcript of her purported marks in an M.Comm. program. York University provided her with a certificate “based upon documents submitted by Ms Neeru Mehan” that the B. Comm. was the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree at a reputable Canadian university, and that the B. Comm. and M. Comm. together were comparable in academic level to the completion of a four year (Honours) Bachelor Degree at such a university. [12] In her examination-‐in-‐chief the grievor admitted that she had seen the documents before she submitted them to York University and knew they were not hers. She testified that her husband told her he got the documents from his older brother and said “you don’t have to worry I know how this works in the Ministry.” Union counsel asked her how she felt about going to York University with these documents. She replied “I just followed him. I didn’t do anything.” When asked by union counsel whether she had had any feeling about whether what she was doing was right or wrong, she said “I was just scared of him. Being a manager he is doing all these things, so I thought whatever he was doing was right.” Asked again whether she had had any thoughts about whether what she was doing was right or wrong, she replied “As I said, I just followed him.” Asked why it was she did what she did,
she said it was because she was scared for her life and her children’s lives, referring to an occasion on which she said her husband had told her mother that if he had a gun he would shoot her. [13] In January 2000, the Ministry received an application (under cover of a letter dated January 27, 1999) that appeared to be from the grievor for a Tax Auditor position at the TA4 level. [1] In his cross-‐examination of her employer counsel drew her attention to the signature on the application letter. She said it looked like hers, and that she could have signed it, but insisted that her husband wrote it. When asked whether she knew about the resume that accompanied the letter she answered “he used to say sign and I signed.” The accompanying resume recited a work history that included employment as an “Accounting Supervisor” with Royal International Trading Co. Inc. from July 1990 to November 1992 and as an “Accountant” with Pryanka Inc. from September 1994 to November 1997, and as an “Auditor” with “S. Gupta & Associates, Chartered Accountants” during another period. The resume further claimed that the grievor had obtained B. Comm. and M. Comm. Degrees from the University of Delhi, and referred to the Certificate of Equivalency issued by York University in September 1999. [14] The Ministry’s academic requirements for a TA4 position were that the applicant have completed the requirements for a CA, CMA or CGA designation or, alternately, have a university degree at the Bachelors level and have completed, either in the university program or otherwise, a specific list of courses in Accounting, Taxation and Auditing. The grievor’s application was apparently rejected at the screening stage because it did not show that she had completed the equivalents of the specified accounting and auditing courses. [15] Thereafter, on or about May 2, 2000, the grievor filled out a fax cover sheet stating that 5 pages were being sent, and faxed something to Ms. Ginette Stirrup in the Ministry’s HR department. The grievor says she does not recall what was attached. In that time frame the Ministry received an undated, unsigned letter to Ms. Stirrup that began “Further to our telephone conversations last week, please find enclosed the list of courses I have completed in B. Comm. and M. Comm. which will qualify me for the TA4 position.” The letter then sets out a list of courses. It appears this was accompanied by a copy of the York University Certificate, another list of courses and two pages purporting to be statements of marks from the University of Delhi for Neeru Sharma. The grievor says she remembers discussing other subjects with Ms. Stirrup in that time frame, but not the matter of her credentials. [16] The letter discharging the grievor referred to a letter of May 8, 2000. The grievor admits that she delivered that letter to Ms. Anidjar, the then Director of the North York office. The letter was addressed to “The Selection Board – TA4 Competition.” It began “I respectfully submit my academic credentials for the position of TA4 … .” It asserted that “I have obtained Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) and Master of Commerce degrees from Delhi University, India.” It
referred to the York University certificate, made arguments about the equivalency of the specific courses taken, and ended thus: Please reconsider your decision and let me know what do you think about it. I need to know in writing your opinion why you disqualify me for the interview of the position of Senior Field Auditor ( TA4). Thanks Yours truly Neeru Mehan Field Auditor-‐ Retail Sales Tax PS. I have already submitted the list of courses and evaluation letter from York University. The letter was unsigned. The grievor says she did not prepare it, that her husband did that. She says she was unaware of its contents when she delivered it. She does not recall any subsequent discussion about the letter, or her qualifications, with Ms. Anidjar. [17] The grievor testified at length about how her husband had been controlling and abusive was during their marriage, about his episodes of violence and threats of injury or death toward her. She testified also that his friends, including other managers in the Ministry, had told her she should be more subservient in her relationship with him. She stated that she went along with whatever he wanted her to do, out of fear. At various points in her testimony about workplace matters she also said that she did as he directed because he was a manager and therefore knew what was required in the workplace. [18] The grievor’s husband left their matrimonial home in June 2000. He had her served with divorce papers shortly thereafter. Divorce proceedings ensued. She testified that she received a certificate of divorce in March 2003. [19] In August 2000 the grievor and a union steward attended a meeting or meetings with Ms. Anidjar. The intended purpose of the initial meeting was not clearly established in evidence. A memorandum that Ms. Anidjar sent to the grievor afterwards says the meeting had been set up to review the grievor’s educational qualifications and compare them with those required for a TA4 position. Ms. Anidjar did not testify, however. The grievor was the only witness who attended the initial or any subsequent meeting. Her testimony is that she had had nothing to do with raising issues about her qualifications or her elimination from the competition for a TA4 positions and had not personally requested a meeting for the purpose
described in the memorandum. She remembers going with a union steward to a meeting with Ms. Anidjar. She does not recall discussing educational qualifications. [20] The grievor does recall, as Ms. Anidjar’s memorandum recites, that at this meeting she informed Ms. Anidjar of certain activities in which her husband had been engaged prior to their separation. Those activities involved his providing accounting services to private clients. Ms. Anidjar’s memorandum confirms that she told the grievor that those alleged activities, if substantiated, would represent a grave violation of the Ministry’s conflict of interest rules. [21] The grievor testified that she reported her husband’s activities to the employer because she had become fearful about their consequences for her. That fear had been provoked by the execution at their home of a search warrant issued at the request of federal taxation authorities, a search warrant that, she understood, had named her as well as her husband. [22] In addition to the memorandum to which I have referred, Ms. Anidjar delivered a second memorandum to the grievor after the August meeting. That memorandum addressed in detail the question whether the academic credentials received from her (as the employer thought) were insufficient to demonstrate that she had the academic qualifications necessary for a TA4 position. The grievor testified that she understood this to be a response to the correspondence created by her husband earlier in May, and stated that she at no time personally spoke with Ms. Anidjar or anyone in Human Resources about her credentials or the application for the TA4 position. The union’s position on her behalf was that she made no misrepresentations to the employer about her academic credentials after her separation in June 2000, and any involvement she had in conveying misrepresentations prior to that was at the insistence of her husband, whose schemes she had been powerless to resist during their cohabitation. [23] The employer investigated the grievor’s allegations concerning her estranged husband’s activities. The grievor cooperated in the investigation. In November 2000 it suspended both of them with pay pending the outcome. When the investigation was completed, the Ministry concluded that her husband had been in a conflict of interest, but she had not. He was discharged. She returned to work. Following her return to work there were health and other issues that led to absences from work. Some managers raised issues about her competence and productivity. The grievor says she perceived this as retaliation engineered by her husband through his manager friends. [24] The grievor’s husband appealed his discharge to the PSGB. She testified for the employer at the PSGB hearing, which began in June 2003 and concluded in August 2004. (His dismissal was eventually upheld in a decision issued in November 2005.)
[25] In the meantime, by memorandum dated August 13, 2003, Mr. Ratansi, the then manager of her section, requested that the grievor clarify her employment history and educational credentials and provide the originals of the documents reflecting the latter: It is my understanding that during discussions with your manager Kathleen Young at the time of your last PMCP, you indicated to her your desire to attend a number of training sessions to be provided to newly hired tax auditors. I felt that this request was unusual considering that you have been a tax auditor since 1998 and were provided all the required training at that time. I have since reviewed your file to gain a better understanding of your educational and work experience background. This review has revealed certain inconsistencies with respect to your education and work experience as stated in two separate resumes and the statement of marks you have submitted. The attached worksheet summarizes this. In order to clarify this, I ask that you provide me a written response to the following questions together with the requested documents by Tuesday September 2, 2003. If you are unable to provide the documentation by that date, please advise me in writing with an estimated date of when you will have this information. 1. Please provide the month and year you commenced and completed your Bachelor of Commerce Degree. Did this require full time attendance at the Educational Institution? 2. If this was done through an affiliated college of the University of Delhi, please provide the name of the college. 3. Please provide the original certificate and the statement of marks. 4. Please provide the month and year you commenced and completed your Master of Commerce Degree. Did this require full time attendance at the Educational Institution? 5. If this was done through an affiliated college of the University of Delhi, please provide the name of the college. 6. Please provide the original certificate and the statement of marks. 7. Please provide original transcript from CMA showing completion of the Intermediate Pre-‐professional level. 8. Please provide your employment history from 1983 to 1987. Include the name of the employer, city and your position. [26] The grievor responded in a memorandum dated September 11, 2003:
Yes, I asked to participate in a number of training courses which had been brought to my attention. My request was based upon: My previous understanding that considering the trauma and harassment I experienced prior to my extended absence that I would receive re-‐orientation training upon my return. Comments by my manager that I was not completing files according to standards, not withstanding her PMCP documentation of satisfactory performance; Comments by my manager belittling my experience due a “perceived failure” to perform and document apparently inappropriate tests on small vendor audits. She offered criticism that I had not tested for goods imported from the United States by convenience stores. No other manager had given such pre audit direction or raised such review criticisms when the test were not consistent with the type of business nor indicated by the original risk analysis. My perceived need to ensure that after the events of the preceding years that I was fully conversant with the policy, procedural and legislative changes introduced during that period. You may know that I had been stripped of all Ministry reference materials and was therefore not in a position to otherwise identify the changes which had occurred immediately prior to and during my absence. You refer to inconsistencies between resumes for two different positions. You have not however referenced the advertisements and qualifications stipulated in those competitions. It is accepted practice to tailor ones resume and covering letter to specifically address the requirements of the position. To my recollection those postings did not ask for “curriculum vitae”. Your analysis addresses neither the posting nor my submission for the position which I now hold. I must therefore protest your pretext for and investigation of minor variances between several resumes prepared for significantly different positions. You have raised specific questions relative to my Indian educational experiences and qualifications. I am sure that you are aware that many of these same documents were previously submitted for review by our Regional Director. In deference to your current position, I will however respond to your questions to the best of my recollections. I regret that in this current climate of distrust that I am not prepared to expose these original documents to the vagaries of this office. The originals have been previously examined. I am not aware that you have any formal qualifications as a forensic examiner hence I am at a complete loss to understand your perceived need for access to the originals. They shall remain on secured deposit with a financial institution. I will supply Certified True Copies of the evaluations and equivalencies provided York University and Society of Management Accountants (CMA).
Our director has previously reviewed a copy of my B.Comm (Honours) transcript issued by University of Delhi and the Canadian equivalencies as stipulated in the ministry policy for the minimum educational qualification of each class of auditors. It is my recollection that after working in Canada India [sic] for a number of months at an Indian accounting firm following my immigration, that I returned to India to sit these exams in 1985. You have requested information regarding a Masters certificate. I have not referred to that document for my current position. I have learned that as a New Canadian with foreign credentials it is not to our advantage to appear overqualified when applying for a junior position. I understand in a meeting with my Opseu representative that you stated that your internet investigation of my alma mater did not disclose any avenue of off campus study. Where as your memo had stipulated that your enquiries were based upon my request for training it appears that you have now validated your questioning of my Canadian Equivalencies based upon your misunderstanding of the information available at www.du.ac.in which provides a site map link “correspondence”. That link fully discloses the remote study program at Delhi University which was begun in 1962! I am at a loss to understand your current justification of this investigation based upon information reportedly derived from your internet search. In your memo, you posed a number of employment related question [sic] which do not appear related to a review of the educational qualifications for my current position. Those references would have been reviewed and validated during the previous competitions. As your questions do not relate directly to educational issues and have been thoroughly canvassed during a previous investigation and sworn statements, I consider this renewed questioning to be at best a continuation of the workplace harassment initiated by Varinder Mehan prior to his dismissal — harassment in which several of his management peers cooperated and now appear to perpetuate on his behalf. The Ministry completed a thorough investigation. I was cleared of culpable activity and re-‐instated. I did not expect that the harassment would continue or that the recommended re-‐orientation training would be denied. While your manager or your predecessors may have failed to fully brief you or to otherwise prepare the management team for the circumstances of my absence and return considering your current investigation, I am left with significant doubts concerning your objectivity in these matters. Failing any new evidence or allegations of culpable fraudulent activity in addition to the issues previously investigated, your actions relative to my education and employment history are unsupportable.
Without new supporting evidence, your investigation which so immediately follows the attempts by Kathleen Young to inappropriately obtain my complete medical history is tainted and must, like that, be considered harassment. The grievor denies that she was saying in this memorandum that the credentials referred to were actually true. “It was an argument,” she said, “I wasn’t telling him I did it.” Pressed again that this said the credentials were real, she answered “no,” that she was only saying that they had been investigated. [27] Under cover of a letter dated September 13, 2003, the grievor filed a lengthy complaint with the Deputy Minster of Finance under the employer’s Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy. In it she complained of a number of management actions, including the questioning of her credentials. The following passage from the second page of her covering letter is representative of the nature and focus of the complaint: Management of this office has failed to action my requests for physical accommodation, has failed to advise or assist me when I reported a job related injury. The denial of physical accommodation has been a direct contravention of public service policies. A recent attempt by my manger [sic] to gain access to my “complete medical history” was harassment in the first degree and a blatant disregard for the stated position of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in that regard. Individual members of the local management team, with support of one or more Human Resources Consultants have adopted the aforementioned course of harassment. Senior management has condoned, perpetuated and otherwise failed to protect me from harassment initiated by or on behalf of my husband while he was employed by the ministry. The most recent investigation of my work and academic history is consistent with and appears to be a continuation of the original slanders made by my husband and his management colleagues notwithstanding that my transcripts and evaluations had been previously reviewed by our Regional Director, Nicole Anidjar and others. [28] The grievor attached to her complaint a copy of her memorandum to Mr. Ratansi and elaborated: You will also note from the attached documentation that senior management continue to question my Indian academic record notwithstanding that they have twice received or examined the original evaluations and equivalencies issued by York University and The Society of Management Accountants of Ontario. The Regional Audit Manager on September 10, 2003 stated to my union representative that based upon his review of the web site for my alma mater that I could not have completed these programs as Delhi University does not have a remote study program! The remote study program is fully disclosed on the website:
www.du.ac.in and has been in operation since 1962. His current investigation is unfounded and I believe Harassment based upon Place of Origin in contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code. [29] The grievor further addressed the matter of her qualifications in an attachment to the covering letter, in which she set out details of the behaviour that she said amounted to harassment: My academic and experience history were disclosed during two competitions, reviewed by the Director of the North York Regional Office, and evaluated by two educational institutions. In defence of my husbands legal action against the ministry and in the presence of ministry officials I have been examined under oath on my qualifications for the position which I hold. That evidence has not been refuted hence I do not understand this renewed attention to my academic history. This investigation appears to be driven by a management need to discredit me for issues previously raised or a refusal to acknowledge educational certificates and credits earned in my country of origin. [30] The grievor testified that Mr. Ratansi’s questions about her qualifications were harassment because, she believed, managers already knew about the fake papers her husband had submitted. She acknowledged there was nothing in the complaint about the credentials being fake, and said that was “because this was about harassment, not about credentials.” As for the statements in her complaint about her having been examined about her qualifications in the defence of her husband’s legal action against the Ministry, she repeatedly testified that she had not been asked about or testified about her qualifications in that hearing. She stated that her husband had known about her qualifications and that what she was saying in the complaint was that her husband knew all these things and that this “should not be challenged or should not be neglected.” [31] Mr. Ratansi nevertheless made enquiries of Delhi University concerning the academic credentials. Because the grievor had accused Mr. Ratansi of harassment, however, the then acting Director of the North York office repeated those enquiries out of an abundance of caution. The responses they received, in October 2003 and April 2004, were that the documents were “fake,” that there was no record of a Neeru Sharma having taken those courses or achieved those results. [32] In mid-‐May 2004, after he became the new Director of the North York office, John Andersen was advised of the information that had been received from Delhi University. He then met with the grievor and suspended her with pay pending an investigation into the veracity of her accounting credentials. Communications ensued between Mr. Andersen and a union steward about when the grievor would be able to meet with Mr. Andersen to discuss the matter. Eventually he was told she would meet on June 18, 2004. She attended with the union steward. Mr. Andersen told her he wished to ask her the following two questions:
“I have provided you with a copy of a letter from the University of Delhi which disputes the veracity of the credentials that you provided to support your eligibility to compete for a TA 2 position in Retail Sales Tax. Do you dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the letter from the University?” “If your credentials were not correct why did you request an explanation, which you were provided on August 25, 2000, from the former Director of the North York Regional Tax Office, Nicole Anidjar, as to the academic qualifications of a Tax Auditor 4 in Retail Sales Tax?” The grievor said she would not answer the questions orally but would instead take a copy of the questions and provide a written response. [33] She eventually responded by letter dated July 5, 2004 as follows: This statement is provided voluntarily to assist with an internal review by my employer. I have not waived nor do I intend to waive any rights against self incrimination in criminal proceedings. Nor do I admit any criminal intent in this matter. This statement is not intended to authorize collection of personal information beyond that contained herein. Before responding specifically to the questions submitted by Mr. Andersen I believe it would be appropriate to put the documents referred to in context. It was not I who drafted the credentials or the request for explanation relating to the letter from the University of Delhi. It was my ex-‐husband who at all times, who initiated the documentation and drafted it. I merely signed it under duress. At all times I was assured that he would take care of the situation. Accordingly, while I do not dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the letter from the University I respectfully request that you view my actions and unwilling participation in light of the contents of this response. As indicated above the request for an explanation which is referred to in question 2 was drafted by my ex-‐husband. Thus, in reality, it was nor [sic] I who requested the information. The reason for the request was never explained to me. In regard to the foregoing I also request that you look at my actions in light of the circumstances surrounding my life at that time. As I am sure you are aware. I was going through a very acrimonious divorce. This divorce was the culmination of a very abusive relationship. Throughout my marriage I was demeaned and physically assaulted. As a result of the relentless abuse which included an assault with a hot iron smashing of a door on my stomach while I was pregnant, threats to my well being and to my life. I feared for my safety. In fact, my husband was taken to jail at one point after one such hitting incident.
In addition, my daughter was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis in 1998 and remained symptomatic until May 2001. Further, I have been, and remain, under a doctor’s care for depression. It was due to this systematic strategy by my husband of diminishing my self-‐esteem that I became unable to resist his suggestions. As well, the deterioration of my health and that of my daughter further undermined my ability to withstand his attacks and also compromised my judgment. Ultimately, as a means of self preservation and out of concern for my children’s safety and health I reluctantly acquiesced to his schemes. I felt it was necessary for me to put these questions in context. While I may have participated and I sincerely regret my participation my actions were involuntary. Thus, I ask the Ministry make its decision with these facts in mind. I further request that the Ministry provide me with an opportunity to continue my employment. I would like an opportunity to show that I am trustworthy. Further, my children will suffer if I am not provided this opportunity. In that regard my husband has indicated in his divorce affidavit that he earns only $11,000 per year (tax returns 2003). As can be seen due to this I am the only source of financial support for my children. Loss of employment would be devastating to them. Further, I am prepared to accept whatever controls and/or disciplinary measures the Ministry considers appropriate. My only request is that it not terminates [sic] my service or penalizes [sic] me financially. I would be pleased to go to any remedial courses which the Ministry would consider appropriate under the circumstances. I thank you for your kind consideration of the foregoing. Should you have any further questions or concerns I would be pleased to address them. In addition, I have documentation relating to my divorce which substantiates the abuse and my medical condition referred to above. I would be prepared to provide copies of this documentation at your request. I sincerely regret considering the working conditions I encountered I was not liberty to bring this matter forward earlier. [34] Union counsel took the grievor through this letter, inviting her point by point confirmation of the assertions in it. When he came to the statement in the eighth paragraph that she “became unable to resist his suggestions,” he asked what suggestions she was referring to. There was a long pause, as there often was when the grievor was asked questions to which her answer was not “I do not remember” or “I do not recall.” Eventually she said that one time her husband said that she should leave her job with the Ministry and “go private,” that he would tell her which companies to go to offering help in getting tax refunds, and they would give her 50 percent. Union counsel asked if she had resisted that suggestion. She replied that she had ignored it. Then she added “certain things he insisted he forced me to do things at that time, I was so helpless.” In response to union counsel’s further questions, she eventually said that that was the only suggestion that she had ignored and added that “some things he forced me, threatened me to do.” She elaborated that her husband was “greedy for money” and would say to her “if you do this you
will get this much money and we will have this.” Then she testified that delivery to Ms. Anidjar of the letter of May 8, 2000 was one of the suggestions she had been unable to resist, but said she could not recall any other examples. She did not say what threat, if any, had induced her to deliver the letter. [35] Union counsel then asked the grievor what “schemes” she had in mind when she wrote that she had “reluctantly acquiesced to his schemes.” Her first response was another reference to the refunds scheme, her husband’s scheme that she would work for a private company and he would tell her which companies were supposed to get refunds. Pressed to elaborate, she eventually stated that taking the fake documents to York was one of the schemes, and that delivering the May 8th letter was another. Then she added the preparation for the interview for the FO2/TA2 position, about which she claimed he had said “they are my friends, you don’t have to worry.” Union counsel asked her how she had felt at the time about participating in his schemes. She replied that she did not know she was participating in schemes, that he was a manager and she thought he knew everything. [36] Union counsel asked the grievor what she meant when, in the final sentence of the letter of July 5, 2004, she said that she had not been at liberty to bring this matter forward earlier. She said “this matter” was the matter of the false academic documents and resume. She said she had not been at liberty due to “all the conditions”, because of her ex-‐husband and all he had done and because of advice she said a union steward had given her before she met with Ms. Anidjar in August 2000. Here she repeated earlier testimony that when speaking to the union steward before that meeting she had told him that there was something wrong with her resume – not that it was false, just that there was something wrong with it, that it had been prepared and sent by her husband – and that he had replied “they are not talking about you; when they talk about you, you should speak,” and told her that they were asking about her husband, so she should just talk about her husband. [37] In late July 2004 Mr. Andersen received a fax that had been written as though it came from the grievor, purporting to respond to his invitation to provide additional information. The fax asserted that the “allegations of my competency and qualifications was known to various managers at RTO-‐NY having been a topic of formal and gossip discussions for a number of years.” It alleged that the manager who had informed her of the meeting at which Mr. Andersen suspended her in May had spoken to her ex-‐husband by telephone that same day. It also asserted that she had given no permission for the collection of information about her from Delhi University. It demanded to know how the letters from the university had been authenticated and under what provisions of the Freedom of Information legislation her personal information had been gathered, retained and distributed. Mr. Andersen testified in chief that he did not know whom this fax had actually come from. During his cross-‐examination of Mr. Andersen union counsel asserted that the fax had come from the grievor.
[38] In the meantime, the third party investigator retained to investigate the grievor’s WDHP complaint had issued his report, in which he concluded that the complaint was without foundation and, moreover, had been made maliciously. [39] At a further meeting on August 9, 2004, Mr. Andersen advised the grievor of his preliminary conclusions. They were that she had misrepresented her qualifications at the hiring stage, had continued to do both before and after her separation from her husband and had made her allegations of discrimination and harassment maliciously and in bad faith. He invited any further explanation she had to offer. The meeting adjourned to August 11, 2004, when the issues were discussed further. The grievor said she had been receiving counselling and was under doctor’s care and asked for the opportunity to provide Mr. Andersen with reports from the counsellor and doctor. He agreed to await those reports before making his final decision. [40] The counsellor’s report provided no description of her qualifications. It said that she had been seeing the grievor since September 2003, during which she had presented with confused cognitive states, sleeplessness, hypervigilence and high anxiety levels. It noted that … the client reported feeling overwhelmed by a stressful work situation, which, in her evaluation, was due to intimidation by her former spouse. She stated that her reluctance to disclose information (which she states was fraudulently prepared by her ex-‐spouse) was due to fear of loss of employment which she believed would leave her immediate family financially destitute. She disclosed that she was also the target of physical and verbal abuse during their marriage and felt restricted by family of origin, cultural, and religious doctrines defining acceptable roles far women. The report did not suggest that the grievor’s difficulties had impaired her ability to distinguish right from wrong or to make appropriate judgments. [41] The grievor’s family doctor spoke with Mr. Andersen and then sent him a letter dated September 16, 2004. The parties have agreed that the following portion of the letter can be treated as expert opinion evidence concerning the grievor’s health and that of her daughter: In addition, she was also aware of the fact that as a supervisor he had hired many other individuals in the same department and these individuals were seen to be natural allies of her husband and she was therefore frightened to confront any other behaviour that he might have been responsible for on a professional level. The conflicts in both her marital situation and employment environment had taken their toll in a physical sense in that she had developed in the last several years hypertension or elevated blood pressure which might in part be due to congenital and environmental factors of a physical nature, such as poor diet and lifestyle but may also have been aggravated by the extreme psychological and emotional stress
to which she was subjected. On several occasions she had to be taken to the emergency department for treatment of suggestive cardiac symptoms, although, her cardiac function thus far has not been irreversibly impaired. However, she has been treated with a number of very potent pharmacologic agents in order to control her blood pressure. During the period in which she was with her husband there were also problems that arose in her children particularly in the older child, her daughter, Natasha, who in 1998 was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. This is a condition that is believed to be of an auto-‐immune nature, that is a condition which may be brought about by circumstances that arise out of the immune system in an individual but, certainly, psychological stress can exacerbate and make it much worse. Since the parents separated, this condition has gone into remission in the daughter as there has been a more peaceful atmosphere in the home and, although she must continue to be kept under surveillance for recurrence of the condition, at the moment the condition has reached a state of remission and the daughter doesn’t have the same symptoms that she had at the onset of this condition. [42] Mr. Andersen testified that what he was looking for in the reports from the counsellor and the doctor was an explanation for the grievor’s delay in revealing the misrepresentations and lack of qualifications after she and her husband separated and he could no longer have been an impediment to her doing so. In particular, he wondered whether there would be information that the grievor had been unable to make competent or rational decisions or to discern that she was in a position for which she did not have credentials since the time she separated from her husband. He found nothing of that sort in the letters provided. [43] Mr. Andersen’s view was that the grievor’s ongoing concealment of her lack of qualifications had exposed the Ministry to considerable risk that taxpayers’ compliance had not been adequately assessed and that amounts owing had not been identified and collected. Her having continued in a position for which she was not qualified had also created an equity issue in relation to others in the position did have the requisite qualifications, as well as those who did not but would have liked to have the position nevertheless. He observed that the reputation of the Ministry was closely related to the conduct and integrity of its employees, and it was extremely important that it be able to trust its employees and rely on their integrity. [44] Mr. Andersen concluded that however involuntary the grievor’s actions may have been before her separation from her husband, her failure to reveal the truth thereafter was voluntary and had destroyed the trust on which continued employment depended. He was not satisfied that he should put her in another job, nor even that he could do so given the requirement of the collective agreement that vacant jobs be posted. He was prepared to accept that the grievor had withheld the truth because she wanted to keep her job, as the counsellor and doctor had both speculated in their letters. He believed that the grievor could have revealed her own situation when she reported her husband’s misconduct.
[45] During cross-‐examination it was put to Mr. Andersen that a number of managers had been acting as tools of the grievor’s husband in a conspiracy to marginalize the grievor, that these managers had known all along that she did not have the proper qualifications for her job and that her failure to be forthcoming had been a product of or reaction to this alleged conspiracy. Union counsel was required to provide particulars of the alleged conspiracy. The particulars provided were largely a repetition of the allegations made by the grievor in her WDHP complaint. [46] When union counsel first made these conspiracy allegations he said that the union would rely on what had been reported by Paul Massé (a former manager of the grievor’s) to Elio Canessa (the senior manager in the area in which the grievor worked) and Nicole Anidjar (the then Director of the North York office) in a lengthy memorandum in September 2000. The grievor’s fax to Mr. Andersen in late July 2004 also referred to this memorandum and asserted that Mr. Massé stood by his report. The union did not call Mr. Massé to testify about the alleged conspiracy or anything else. [47] Union counsel put to Mr. Andersen that the grievor had told him Elio Canessa had been aware that she did not have the proper qualifications. He said he had put this allegation to Mr. Canessa during his investigation and that Mr. Canessa had denied it. The union did not call Mr. Canessa. [48] The grievor’s testimony did not establish that Mr. Canessa knew (before the employer’s correspondence with Delhi University) either that she lacked the qualifications for her FO2/TA2 job or that documents submitted in support of her application for that job had been false. Although she repeatedly testified that she believed managers had been aware of her lack of qualifications, her testimony provided no basis for this belief beyond the fact that her husband had been a manager and had been friends with other managers. Decision [49] The union concedes that the grievor did not have the necessary qualifications for the tax auditor position from which she was dismissed, either when she was awarded the position or when she was dismissed from it nearly six years later. There is no dispute that those qualifications were and are essential for that position. The Ministry has a very strong interest in ensuring not only that tax auditors are qualified to perform their functions but also that they appear to taxpayers and their advisors to be qualified (as the union argued vigorously in Cherwonogrodzky et al., 2002-‐2973 at al., (April 14, 2004, Gray), 2004 55340 (ON GSB), 2004 55340, (2004) 127 L.A.C. (4th) 150). There is no challenge to the Ministry’s having removed her from the position. [50] The union also concedes that the grievor’s conduct gave the employer cause to impose some discipline. The issues here are whether it should have
imposed a lesser penalty but kept her as an employee in another job and whether, in the exercise of my discretion, I should now direct it to do that. [51] Mr. Andersen observed that the employer could not have placed the grievor directly into another position, having regard to its collective agreement obligation to post vacancies. If the employer had been otherwise inclined to retain the grievor as an employee, though, that is an impediment to which it and the union might have found a solution. The central reason for the employer’s decision to dismiss the grievor from employment altogether was her failure to tell it the truth in a timely way. Even if her involvement in the initial deception and her failure to disclose during cohabitation with her husband could be explained as the result of his duress, the employer felt she had been culpably dishonest in failing to disclose the deception and, indeed, actively resisting its discovery, in the four year period after her cohabitation with her husband ended. [52] In argument employer counsel referred to Brown and Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration (3d edition) §7:3324, as well as a number of awards and concerning the consequences of innocent or deliberate misrepresentation in applications for employment: Seguin, 2004-‐0009 (Brown, January 13, 2005), Bradley, 1050/94, etc. (Finley, March 8, 1996), Dain, 3814/92 (Gorsky, December 13, 1994), Koufis, 372/82 (Barton, November 27, 1982), McKenna, 103/79 (Swan, November 18, 1980) (reported at (1981), 28 L.A.C. (2d) 410, Re Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. and I.W.A., Loc. 1-‐423, (1989) 4 L.A.C. (4th) 41 (Vickers), Re Canadian Airlines International Ltd. v. International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 764 (O’Neill), [1999] C.L.A.D. No. 577 (Munroe), Re Westfair Foods Ltd. and United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 247, (2005) 131 L.A.C. (4th) 352 (Taylor), Copp v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2003] C.P.S.S.R.B. No. 8 and Re Douglas Aircraft Co. of Canada Ltd. And United Automobile Workers, Local 1967, (1973) 2 L.A.C. (2d) 147 (Simmons). [53] Union counsel referred to Brown and Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration (3d edition) §7:4400 (Mitigating Factors) as well as Re Gould Manufacturing of Canada Ltd. and United Steelworkers of America (1972), 1 L.A.C. (2d) 314 (Shime) (jud. rev. denied [1973] 2 O.R. 279 (Ont. Div. Ct.)), Re Bell Canada and Communications & Electrical Workers of Canada (1992), 24 L.A.C. (4th) 116 (Shime), Re Sensenbrenner Hospital and Service Employees International Union, Local 204 (2003), 115 L.A.C. 434 (Brent) and Re Versacold Group and Teamsters, Local 419 (2000), 85 L.A.C. (4th) 366 (Davie). [54] Decisions of this Board have generally accepted the observations in Gould, supra, at p. 317 that not every falsification of an employment application constitutes just cause for discharge, and that a number of factors must be considered in determining whether there is just cause for discharge in any particular case. The factors to be considered include the nature, character and extent of the falsification, its materiality to the employment, and the time elapsed since the misrepresentation. In Seguin, supra, Vice-‐Chair Brown quoted with approval observations that
arbitrator Pritchard made in Re Ralston Purina of Canada Inc. and Energy and Chemical Workers Union (1982), 7 L.A.C. (3d) 45 (at pages 53 and 54) concerning the rationale for the Gould approach: In an earlier case I had occasion to review the arbitral decisions in this area: see Re Spiers and Ministry of Natural Resources (GSB 181/78). … Fundamentally, the Douglas Aircraft approach supports the proposition that once the employer discovers the falsification, the employer should be free to act as he would have if he had been aware of the true facts at the time the grievor was hired. Thus, if full disclosure would have caused the employer not to hire the grievor at the outset, the employer should be free to discharge the grievor once the true facts are discovered. … The Gould approach is premised on the belief that the inquiry must be guided by considerations other than simply how the employer would have acted and that these considerations should include matters which have occurred between the date of employment and the discovery of the falsification. Furthermore, Gould necessarily suggests that while the employer is normally free to determine who he wishes to hire, once that person has been hired (even following some falsification), the decision as to whether or not the person can be dismissed must canvass a broader range of interests than those which inform the initial hiring decision. In particular, the interests of the employee are added to the balance and must be weighed along with the employer’s interest in making informed employment decisions. … The justification for the Gould approach is both contractual and statutory. Article 21.03 of the collective agreement and s. 44 of the Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 228, require the arbitrator to consider not only whether or not there was just cause for discipline, but also whether the penalty imposed -‐-‐ discharge in this case -‐-‐ is just and reasonable in the circumstances. That is, once an employee comes under the umbrella of the collective agreement and the statute as the grievor did when he was hired, he may only be discharged following a consideration of the discharge decision in light of the notions of just cause and just and reasonable penalties. The Gould approach argues, in effect, that in elaborating and determining these notions, the arbitrator can and should not restrict his attention to a single fact; how would the employer have acted if he had known the true facts at the outset? Rather, the arbitrator must consider all relevant matters including the interests of the employee. I accept that the approach in Gould is the appropriate one here. I do not think a detailed review of the other awards cited to me would be useful. I am not persuaded that the grievor’s situation is at all analogous to that of an employee who is initially qualified but loses qualification due to a driver’s licence suspension or a change in legislation. The facts of this case are very different from those of the cases addressed in those awards.
[55] The tax auditor position was the grievor’s first employment in a permanent position in the classified service. Prior to that, her positions with the Ministry had been temporary. The misrepresentations that were made in connection with her application for that position were highly material. The grievor would not have been awarded the position if truthful information had been provided about her accounting credentials. Having appropriate accounting credentials is central to the credibility of tax auditors, and by extension the Ministry, in their dealings with taxpayers. [56] The unusual feature of this case is the grievor’s claim that a third party, her husband, was the author of the misrepresentations and that her involvement, including her attendance for an interview and acceptance of the job, were entirely the result of her husband’s duress. [57] The grievor was the only witness with personal knowledge of relevant events prior to May 2004. There is no reason to doubt her testimony that her husband was domineering and abusive and, from time to time, violent. There is, however, some reason to doubt that her participation in the initial and ongoing deception of the employer during her cohabitation with her husband was entirely or even substantially the result of fear of her husband or duress he created. [58] During her examination-‐in-‐chief union counsel repeatedly gave the grievor the opportunity to say that she had known what she was doing was wrong but had been powerless to do otherwise. She did sometimes say that in a general way. Beyond observing that she should not have followed her husband, however, she had difficulty identifying what particularly had been wrong with what she had done at various points in time. Indeed, when asked why she had done things she said her husband had told her to do she often replied to the effect that he was a manager and she had therefore assumed that anything he asked her to do was right. [59] The grievor’s testimony about her reaction to her husband’s tax refund business scheme (paragraphs [34] and [35] above) revealed that she was not powerless to resist every suggestion her husband made, notwithstanding his domineering, abusive and occasionally violent nature. That begged the question what it was about the occasions when he had her submit or rely on false applications and resumes that made her powerless to resist doing so. She did not testify that she made any attempt to ignore him on those occasions, nor that he made any specific threat that induced her to participate in those particular schemes. The truth well may be that she was simply a willing participant in those activities, unconcerned about or wilfully blind to the impropriety of using falsehoods to gain increasingly more lucrative employment. [60] In any event, the grievor’s cohabitation with her husband ceased in June 2000. He filed for divorce. Thereafter, her fear of him did not prevent her from promptly reporting his past misconduct to their common employer. Belief that other
managers were allied with him did not deter her from going beyond them to the Director to make that report. Even if his alleged influence and control could explain her concealment up to that point of the deceit by which she had obtained her job, it could not do so thereafter. [61] In closing argument union counsel conceded that the grievor had had an obligation to reveal the deception after she separated from her husband, and that her failure to do so was cause for some discipline, as I have noted, but argued that consideration of the circumstances should lead me so substitute a lesser penalty than discharge. The circumstances he addressed included her cooperation with the employer in the investigation of her husband, her health difficulties, the financial concerns attendant on her separation and divorce from her husband, her children’s dependence on her and the length of time she had been employed by the Ministry. He also argued, as I have noted, that she had not made any misrepresentation about her qualifications after her husband left her. [62] In his closing argument union counsel made no reference to the grievor’s claims that a union steward had advised her in 2000 not to volunteer information about her resume. I draw from the omission no inference adverse to the grievor, nor is this observation intended as criticism of union counsel, who it seems to me did everything he reasonably could for a grievor who turned out to be her own worst witness. Although the steward’s alleged advice was not specifically urged on me as a factor to consider, however, in all the circumstances I would be remiss if I did not address it in this decision. [63] Having seen and heard the grievor testify over several days, my impression is that she is not at all reluctant to ascribe blame to others when she believes there is any basis for so doing. If the union steward had said anything remotely like what she claims he did, I would have expected this to have been part of the story she told from the moment she started offering the employer explanations, but it was not. If the union steward did give such advice, moreover, it was based on information from which she withheld key points. She does not claim to have told him that she did not have the accounting credentials that her job required, nor that her husband had created and forced her to submit a job application and resume that were false. The latter would have been highly pertinent to an investigation of her husband’s conduct as a manager, and the rationale that they were only asking her about her husband would not logically have justified her remaining silent about it. [64] In any event, if the steward gave her advice not to say anything about herself, it was she who chose to follow it. It was wrong to withhold the information. It was no less wrong if her doing so was based on the advice of a union steward. Finally, it is noteworthy that the part of the union steward’s alleged advice was that she should tell the employer if it asked about her. She chose not follow that part of the advice when Mr. Ratansi asked about her qualifications in 2003.
[65] I reject the union’s argument that the grievor never asserted the validity of the fraudulent academic documents after her husband left her. In her response to Mr. Ratansi she referred to those documents as relating to “my Indian educational experiences and qualifications” and spoke of “my B.Comm (Honours) transcript.” In her WDHP complaint and the attachment to it she said Mr. Ratansi’s investigation was about “my work and academic history” and “my transcripts” and “educational certificates and credits earned in my country of origin.” These were representations that the documents reflected her academic history. That was false to her knowledge. Both in her memo to Mr. Ratansi and in her WDHP complaint she asserted that the legitimacy of those documents had been tested or verified in some way by a Director of the North York office and on other occasions. That was also false on the evidence before me. [66] Rather than reveal the truth when asked, as she claims the union steward told her she should do, the grievor responded to Mr. Ratansi’s questions in 2003 by attacking him. Whether or not she honestly believed that Mr. Ratansi was involved in an alleged conspiracy of managers (a conspiracy that was alleged again but not proven in this proceeding), there clearly were others to whom she could have confided the truth. The effect of that attack and the ongoing failure to reveal the truth to any employer representative was to further delay the employer’s discovery of the truth. During that delay she continued to receive pay for a position that she knew she had obtained as a result of deceit, whether the deceit was hers or her husband’s. [67] Had she revealed that deceit in 2000, after her husband left her, the employer might have been persuaded to put her in a lower paid job for which she was qualified. She chose not to do that, preferring to continue receiving the higher income associated with the job she had improperly obtained and avoid the risk of being dismissed and having to find a lower paid job elsewhere. She chose to put her own interests above her duty of honesty to her employer. As a result, the employer does not trust her, and justifiably so. [68] I agree with the union that the grievor’s cooperation in the investigation of her husband, her health difficulties, the financial concerns attendant on her separation and divorce from her husband, her children’s dependence on her and the length of time she had been employed by the Ministry all bear consideration in her favour in a Gould analysis. They are entirely outweighed, however, by the materiality of the misrepresentation, her continued reliance on it and her failure to reveal the truth, particularly after June 2000, either on her own or when asked about it directly. [69] I find that the grievor’s dishonest conduct gave the employer just cause to discharge her from employment altogether and not just from the job for which it learned she had been unqualified from the outset. Having regard both to that dishonest conduct and to her apparent unwillingness or inability to take full responsibility for it during the hearing before me, I am not persuaded that this is a
case in which I should exercise my discretion to require that the employer provide the grievor with continued employment or employment opportunities. [70] For those reasons this grievance is dismissed.
