The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench's recent decision in
Watkins v Willow Park Golf Course, 2017 ABQB 541, centers around a case
of a supervisor who developed unreturned romantic feelings for
another employee. The case also contains important lessons for
employers on how to address cases of sexual harassment in the
workplace.
Ralph Watkins was employed as the Superintendent of the Defendant
Golf Course. In May/June 2011, Mr. Watkins began to develop an
infatuation with Ms. Li, an employee working on the grounds keeping
crew. As a result of Mr. Watkins' feelings for Ms. Li, she was
given preferential treatment in a number of respects. Nevertheless,
Ms. Li made it clear to Mr. Watkins that his affection and hopes
for a relationship were not reciprocated.
After being rebuffed, Mr. Watkins' attitude towards Ms. Li
fluctuated from continuing to trying to woo her and becoming
abusive. Mr. Watkins' bullying and abuse included name calling,
cursing, aggressiveness, and a continuing stream of inappropriate
communications from Mr. Watkins to Ms. Li, both on and off the
clock. It reached the point where she feared for her safety.
The Golf Course's management first became aware of the
relationship between Ms. Li and Mr. Watkins when another employee
complained of the preferential treatment she was (initially)
receiving. In response to this, management directed Mr. Watkins to
terminate Ms. Li, or at least to strip her of the title of
"Assistant Superintendent". However, no tangible change
occurred.
It was not until several months letter, when Ms. Li wrote a letter
of complaint to the entire Management Committee concerning Mr.
Watkins' behavior, that they took action. The Management
Committee discussed the situation at a meeting, and interviewed
other employees. They also asked Mr. Watkins to respond to the
allegations at the meeting, to which he gave a blanket denial.
After an hour long meeting, the Management Committee proceeded to
terminate Mr. Watkins with just cause, citing:
- Verbal and sexual harassment;
- Insubordination (for failing to terminate or demote Ms. Li per their instructions);
- Mr. Watkins' failure to disclose his relationship with Ms. Li; and
- The impact any relationship could have on other employees.
After his termination, Mr. Watkins sued the Golf Course, arguing
that his termination with cause was unwarranted, particularly in
light of the Golf Course's alleged failure to properly
investigate Ms. Li's claims or to allow him a meaningful
opportunity to respond to those claims.
The Golf Course alleged that Mr. Watkins' conduct was so
egregious that it warranted termination with cause without the need
for investigation or the possibility of rehabilitation. It also
pointed to further misconduct amounting to "cumulative
cause" as justifying Mr. Watkins' termination. Such other
misconduct included mistreatment of other employees, as well as Mr.
Watkins' management style generally, which included yelling,
berating, and cursing at his staff.
The Golf Course's decision to immediately dismiss Mr. Watkins
was ultimately upheld. The Court concluded that Mr. Watkins'
sexual and verbal harassment was sufficient to justify the
termination of his employment with cause. In addition to this
harassment of Ms. Li, there was also unacceptable verbal harassment
of other employees and the overall failure to keep issues with Ms.
Li out of the sphere of his other subordinates, effectively
poisoning the work environment for all of them. In upholding the
termination, the Court did not, however, condone the Golf
Course's handling of the situation. The Court criticized the
Golf Course's actions, including:
- Identifying the failure to perform a formal investigation;
- Critiquing the employer for not allowing Mr. Watkins a longer period of time to respond more meaningfully to the accusations made against him; and
- Noting that nobody from management ever spoke directly to Ms. Li about her allegations.
Notwithstanding all of the issues with the Golf Course's
handling of the situation, the Court held that while an employer
may enhance its case for summary termination by conducting a proper
and thorough investigation, and thus may also hurt its case by
failing to do so, the failure to do so does not automatically
preclude a justified termination with cause. The Court found that
had the Golf Course conducted an investigation, it would have
simply confirmed Ms. Li's allegations and the information
coming from the other employees.
From a practical perspective, the termination of a problematic
employee comes with many risks. While an employer's failure to
conduct an investigation will not automatically vitiate a just
cause termination, a lack of an investigation or an inadequate one
may weaken an employer's just cause argument. Where there is
alleged misconduct and complaints, an employer should avoid taking
shortcuts within the investigation and termination process. As
demonstrated by this case, an employer should:
- Conduct a formal investigation in a prompt manner – while a formal investigation does not always require an independent investigator, it should provide for procedural fairness, follow any policies and procedures in place, and include a gathering of all information.
- Provide the employee with notice of the concerns and an appropriate period of time to respond to the accusations.
- Speak directly to the complainant and obtain a full picture of the complaint.
If you require advice and assistance with dealing with complaints against employees or in investigating alleged misconduct, Field Law's Labour & Employment Group is available to assist. Please contact us for further information.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.