A dietary aide wrongfully terminated for allegedly falsifying her timesheet to claim pay for shifts she didn’t work has been awarded compensation after an arbitrator found no evidence of fraud or attempted fraud.
The worker was fired from Cavendish Manor Retirement Home in Niagara Falls, Ont., in February after the employer accused her of “time theft” for recording regular work hours on her timesheet for Jan. 1, 2 and 3, 2025, despite not working those days. The employer alleged she was attempting to fraudulently obtain payment.
The arbitrator found the employee was legitimately entitled to pay for all three days — Jan. 1 as a statutory holiday and Jan. 2 and 3 as approved lieu days to compensate for previously working statutory holidays. Her timesheet entries were “an innocent, maybe naïve, attempt on her part to ensure that she would be paid for the three days in question in accordance with the collective agreement, and not an attempt to defraud the employer.”
Confusion over timesheet procedures
The case highlighted significant procedural confusion at the workplace. The retirement home’s sign-in sheet contained contradictory instructions, stating employees should “Do NOT fill out other columns” while the employer’s president testified that workers should have used the “in lieu” column to properly document lieu days.
The worker, who was employed as a dietary aide from August 2019 until her termination, had requested lieu days for Jan. 2 and 3 through text messages with her supervisor in November 2024. The supervisor responded with approval, including a thumbs-up emoji. The employer’s posted schedule confirmed the employee was not expected to work those days, showing other employees assigned to cover her shifts.
The worker testified she had never been instructed on how to complete timesheets for statutory holidays or lieu days. She said her entries were motivated by previous experiences of delayed payment for lieu days, not an intent to defraud.
Employer failed to investigate
The arbitrator criticized the employer’s handling of the situation. The retirement home’s president terminated the worker without speaking to her about the timesheet entries or conducting any investigation.
“The employer’s failure to discuss the alleged attempted fraud with the grievor before discharging her demonstrates its contempt for the truth,” the arbitrator found.
The president testified the employer had attempted to communicate through WhatsApp messages but claimed the worker’s reluctance to use the platform made communication impossible. However, the arbitrator noted that even after discovering the alleged misconduct, the employee worked approximately 15 more shifts before being terminated.
The employer called no other witnesses, including the dietary supervisor who had approved the lieu days or the accountant involved in payroll processing. The arbitrator drew an adverse inference from these omissions, concluding their testimony would not have supported the employer’s case.
Evidence supported worker’s version
The arbitrator found the worker’s testimony “entirely credible and consistent with the documentary evidence,” while describing the president’s testimony as “argumentative and evasive” with little first-hand knowledge of the facts.
Key evidence supporting the employee included text message exchanges showing her supervisor’s approval of lieu days, the posted work schedule confirming she wasn’t scheduled to work, and her own message to management in January noting she hadn’t been paid for the lieu days and statutory holiday.
The small workplace environment also made fraud implausible, the arbitrator noted, since “only two Dietary Aides worked each shift” and any attempt to claim payment for shifts not worked “would almost certainly have been very quickly discovered.”
Union sought compensation over reinstatement
While arbitrators typically order reinstatement for wrongful dismissal, the union sought monetary compensation instead, arguing the employment relationship had broken down beyond repair due to animosity and lack of trust.
The arbitrator rejected this argument, finding the employment relationship remained viable despite tensions. However, he declined to order reinstatement against the worker’s express wishes.
Rather than awarding the substantial compensation typically reserved for cases where reinstatement is impossible, the arbitrator applied employment standards legislation. He awarded the employee $3,497 representing five weeks’ pay in lieu of notice — the minimum entitlement for her length of service under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act.
The arbitrator noted there was “no justification for denying the grievor the compensation that a non-unionized employee would receive in comparable circumstances.”
The worker had earned $18.65 per hour working 37.5 hours per week at the retirement home, which employed 35 to 40 staff serving 60 residents.
The case involved Niagara Health Care and Service Workers Union, CLAC Local 302, which represented the worker in the arbitration proceeding heard in July and August 2025.
For more information, see Cavendish Manor Retirement Home v Niagara Health Care and Service Workers Union, CLAC Local 302, 2025 CanLII 91101 (ON LA).
