School caretaker hurt on the job while playing floor hockey
This instalment of You Make the Call takes a look at a school caretaker who lied about an injury and was subsequently fired.
In November 2003 the worker, an assistant school caretaker for the Renfrew County Catholic District School Board in Ontario who had been on the job about five-and-a-half years, fell while in the school. It was about 9:30 p.m. and she joined a group of co-workers in the gym to play a game of floor hockey during an unauthorized break from work. She fell while taking a shot on goal.
That night she made a false entry in the school’s incident book, in which she described the fall as work-related. She said she slipped on a spot of mop oil. Marilyn Dinn, a co-worker, volunteered to serve as a witness to the accident and agreed to have her name included for that purpose in the false report.
Three months later, in February 2004, the worker submitted a false claim for workers’ compensation benefits for the incident. She included Dinn as a witness. The school board learned of the fraud in April, when Dinn blew the whistle. She told the board the worker had been playing floor hockey, and was not performing her job duties, when the accident happened. Dinn was asked to put her statement in writing.
Workers’ compensation was informed of the statement. The worker admitted her fraud to WCB. It rejected her claim for benefits and decided not to pursue fraud charges against her.
The worker suffers from a congenital deformation of her spine that caused her pain and periods of disability. When she fell in the floor hockey game, she claimed it aggravated a pre-existing condition. She was off work, with only brief exceptions, for almost one year after the fall.
She told the school board she was fit to return to work on Sept. 30, 2004. The board did not return her to work at that time. By letter of Nov. 24, 2004, the board told her it intended to take disciplinary action. On Dec. 8 the board met with the worker and her union to address the facts and invite responses. On Jan. 10, 2005, the worker was fired.
You make the call
• Was the school board justified in firing the caretaker?
OR
• Should she have been reinstated by an arbitrator?
If you said the school board was justified in firing her, you’re correct. The arbitrator said making a false WCB claim is fraud.
“Just as an employer is entitled to trust its employees not to walk off with its tools and equipment, an employer is entitled to trust its employees to make claims for benefits under this legislation only when they are genuinely injured in the course of their employment,” the arbitrator said.
The worker attempted to explain her actions by pointing out she was influenced by others and acted out of loyalty to her friends rather than self-interest — in other words, she didn’t want to get co-workers in trouble for playing floor hockey when they were supposed to be working. But the arbitrator didn’t buy that reasoning.
“(The worker) is an adult, working without direct supervision, at night. An employee is obliged to perform her work and report her activities honestly,” the arbitrator said. “That obligation is absolute. The obligation does not disappear when friends and co-workers encourage a lie, or when reporting the truth has potential to cause trouble for someone else.”
The arbitrator said the board was left “wondering” whether it could trust her to perform her job honestly. “The school board’s pessimism has, in my view, factual foundation,” the arbitrator said in upholding the dismissal.
For more information see:
• Renfrew County Catholic District School Board v. C.U.P.E., Local 1202, 2006 CarswellOnt 556 (Ont. Arb. Bd.)
In November 2003 the worker, an assistant school caretaker for the Renfrew County Catholic District School Board in Ontario who had been on the job about five-and-a-half years, fell while in the school. It was about 9:30 p.m. and she joined a group of co-workers in the gym to play a game of floor hockey during an unauthorized break from work. She fell while taking a shot on goal.
That night she made a false entry in the school’s incident book, in which she described the fall as work-related. She said she slipped on a spot of mop oil. Marilyn Dinn, a co-worker, volunteered to serve as a witness to the accident and agreed to have her name included for that purpose in the false report.
Three months later, in February 2004, the worker submitted a false claim for workers’ compensation benefits for the incident. She included Dinn as a witness. The school board learned of the fraud in April, when Dinn blew the whistle. She told the board the worker had been playing floor hockey, and was not performing her job duties, when the accident happened. Dinn was asked to put her statement in writing.
Workers’ compensation was informed of the statement. The worker admitted her fraud to WCB. It rejected her claim for benefits and decided not to pursue fraud charges against her.
The worker suffers from a congenital deformation of her spine that caused her pain and periods of disability. When she fell in the floor hockey game, she claimed it aggravated a pre-existing condition. She was off work, with only brief exceptions, for almost one year after the fall.
She told the school board she was fit to return to work on Sept. 30, 2004. The board did not return her to work at that time. By letter of Nov. 24, 2004, the board told her it intended to take disciplinary action. On Dec. 8 the board met with the worker and her union to address the facts and invite responses. On Jan. 10, 2005, the worker was fired.
You make the call
• Was the school board justified in firing the caretaker?
OR
• Should she have been reinstated by an arbitrator?
If you said the school board was justified in firing her, you’re correct. The arbitrator said making a false WCB claim is fraud.
“Just as an employer is entitled to trust its employees not to walk off with its tools and equipment, an employer is entitled to trust its employees to make claims for benefits under this legislation only when they are genuinely injured in the course of their employment,” the arbitrator said.
The worker attempted to explain her actions by pointing out she was influenced by others and acted out of loyalty to her friends rather than self-interest — in other words, she didn’t want to get co-workers in trouble for playing floor hockey when they were supposed to be working. But the arbitrator didn’t buy that reasoning.
“(The worker) is an adult, working without direct supervision, at night. An employee is obliged to perform her work and report her activities honestly,” the arbitrator said. “That obligation is absolute. The obligation does not disappear when friends and co-workers encourage a lie, or when reporting the truth has potential to cause trouble for someone else.”
The arbitrator said the board was left “wondering” whether it could trust her to perform her job honestly. “The school board’s pessimism has, in my view, factual foundation,” the arbitrator said in upholding the dismissal.
For more information see:
• Renfrew County Catholic District School Board v. C.U.P.E., Local 1202, 2006 CarswellOnt 556 (Ont. Arb. Bd.)
