An arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a former supervisor at Canada Post’s Prince George Mail Processing Plant (PGMPP) for knowingly and dishonestly violating the corporation’s Conflict of Interest Policy by failing to disclose a four-year intimate relationship with a subordinate employee.
Arbitrator Nicholas Glass found D.E.’s continuous failure to disclose his relationship with G.H., a postal worker he supervised, constituted a serious breach of Canada Post’s policies and undermined the trust essential to the employment relationship.
The conflict arose when D.E., who began as a Supervisor, Operations Relief at PGMPP in August 2019, entered into a relationship with G.H., a Postal Clerk Level 4, responsible for sorting mail. Their relationship evolved from casual interactions to an intimate partnership by mid to late spring 2020. Despite overlapping work shifts where D.E. directly supervised G.H., he failed to disclose the relationship as required by the Conflict of Interest Policy.
The policy mandates that “employees must immediately report any actual or potential Conflicts of Interest involving themselves,” including intimate relationships where a supervisory dynamic exists. It emphasizes that a conflict occurs “when an employee’s personal interests or relationships interfere, or appear to interfere with, the interests of Canada Post.”
Signed acknowledgements
D.E. acknowledged receiving and understanding the policy multiple times throughout his employment. At each renewal of his term assignments and upon accepting a permanent full-time position in June 2021, he signed acknowledgements confirming his awareness of the disclosure obligations. He also completed Conflict of Interest training and participated in seminars where the importance of disclosure was reiterated.
The situation came to light on August 29, 2023, when D.E. informed his superintendent, E.A., of his relationship with G.H. This disclosure was not prompted by compliance but stemmed from personal circumstances affecting their relationship. Following this revelation, Canada Post conducted an investigation, during which D.E. admitted to the relationship and acknowledged his failure to disclose it.
Termination letter
In the termination letter dated September 13, 2023, Canada Post stated: “Based on the above, I have concluded that you knowingly and dishonestly violated Canada Post’s Conflict of Interest Policy. Your actions demonstrate a disregard for the Corporation’s policies and procedures. Additionally, you clearly knew and understood the possible ramifications that may arise from disclosing the conflict as you stated you didn’t want to jeopardize your employment.”
The Association of Postal Officials of Canada (the union) conceded that D.E.’s conduct warranted disciplinary action but argued that termination was excessive. They highlighted that D.E. was forthright during the investigation and expressed genuine remorse. The union also noted that there was no evidence of harm or prejudice to Canada Post resulting from the undisclosed relationship.
However, Arbitrator Glass emphasized the significance of the Conflict of Interest Policy within Canada Post, noting its role in maintaining integrity and public trust. He stated, “The importance of the Corporation’s Conflict of Interest Policy was underlined in the evidence of [S.B.], above reviewed.” The arbitrator found that D.E.’s deliberate non-disclosure deprived the employer of the opportunity to mitigate potential risks associated with the conflict.
Absence of proven harm
The arbitrator rejected the argument that the absence of proven harm should mitigate the penalty, stating that the misconduct itself prevented the possibility of such proof and allowed the risk of harm to persist. “I find it was prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation to be burdened with an undisclosed conflict of interest over a long period,” he wrote.
Furthermore, the arbitrator addressed the union’s criticism of the employer’s investigation, concluding that it was reasonable under the circumstances. He noted that a more exhaustive investigation would not have necessarily uncovered any misconduct related to the conflict, given the covert nature of the relationship.
In assessing whether the termination was excessive, the arbitrator applied the principles established in the William Scott case, which consider whether the employment relationship has been irreparably damaged. He concluded that D.E.’s actions “caused the bond of trust between him and the employer to be undone, and the employment relationship was irretrievably broken.”
Arbitrator Glass concluded: “For all the reasons set out above, I find that the discipline of discharge was not excessive in all the circumstances of the case. The grievance is denied.”
For more information, see Canada Post Corporation v Association of Postal Officials of Canada, 2024 CanLII 108264 (CA LA).
