There may be nothing more disruptive for companies than interpersonal issues that have deteriorated beyond the point of repair. Financial services companies can be especially vulnerable to these breakdowns because of the need to maintain an atmosphere of calm and competence in front of customers.
Two recent court cases from opposite ends of the country, despite involving different facts and outcomes, highlight the need for managers to step carefully when they are moving to cool tempers and find a way out of an impasse. Failure to do so can lead to further turmoil in the office — and expensive court proceedings. In many cases, notes Ian Campbell, a lawyer with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Toronto, employers “want to take immediate action to a problem that they either have ignored or didn’t know about. Where people often get into problems is when they decide to take action before they’ve followed all the necessary steps.”
In a recent case involving the National Bank of Canada, senior manager and 21-year employee Adrian Chandran had attracted the attention of higher-ups because of the performance of his branch, which was lagging expectations. In response to a perception of morale problems at the branch, the bank conducted a survey of its employees. Nine of 11 made negative comments, reporting that Chandran had made condescending remarks, had volatile behaviour, embarrassed employees in front of others and engaged in bullying.
Chandran, when confronted by his superiors, denied any wrongdoing and asked for particulars of the allegations. This request was refused. Chandran’s manager and the bank’s HR manager issued a disciplinary letter and made plans to remove his supervisory duties and transfer him to another position. Chandran quit the bank and sued.
In the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Chandran claimed he was not given an opportunity to defend himself and that the bank’s actions amounted to constructive dismissal. The judge agreed. Chandran was awarded 18 months’ pay.
In a note on the case, Toronto lawyer Janice Rubin writes that it’s “prudent” to provide employees with detailed allegations against them before taking action that is going to have a significant impact. In addition, employers who use these types of surveys “should be prepared to change course to a more formal type of investigation” if the survey reveals behaviour that violates company policies and names the individual.
Across the country, managers at the Vancouver-based Khalsa Credit Union, had to deal with a branch manager who was highly proactive in her own defence. In 2000, a review by an outside consultant concluded that branch manager, Sukhwinder Grewal, had breached Khalsa’s policies and procedures on a number of occasions. She was advised in writing that this conduct was unacceptable.
However, financial results at the branches where Grewal worked improved under her tenure and her written performance reviews were usually favourable. Nevertheless, Khalsa’s CEO, Dalbir Sohi, had written to Grewal several times, criticizing aspects of her work, including giving preferred rates on certain loans, arriving late and being disrespectful during a head-office staff meeting. Grewal was upset by what she thought was unwarranted criticism and Sohi considered some of Grewal’s responses to be insubordinate and disrespectful.
Grewal sought legal advice and responded to Sohi’s complaints in a detailed letter. A few months later, Sohi noticed apparent irregularities with Grewal’s personal mortgage renewal and an investigation was launched. After interviewing Grewal but before taking disciplinary action, Sohi received a letter from Grewal’s lawyer, demanding a written apology.
A letter was also sent to the credit union’s board of directors and Khalsa’s regulator, British Columbia’s deputy superintendent of credit unions and trusts. “The letter was obviously intended to do serious damage to Mr. Sohi,” the B.C. Supreme Court judgment says. “The criticism of Mr. Sohi was disrespectful in tone and language and was irreconcilable with Ms. Grewal’s continued employment.”
Grewal sued the credit union, alleging wrongful dismissal. However, the judge found the credit union had just cause to terminate her employment.
Employment law experts note that, as soon as allegations of inappropriate conduct in the workplace have been raised, steps must be taken by management to find out what has happened. Any issues with an employee’s performance should be documented and the individual must be given the opportunity to respond.
Says Campbell: “You need to show that you have raised your concerns with the person, you’ve set out what your issues are and you’ve made your expectations regarding what it is you want them to do clear. It’s a process, it’s not something that you can go from zero to a hundred right away. You have to follow the steps.” IE