View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 6had concluded he was guilty of. He submits that this reference conveyed to him that if any suchbehaviour was repeated in the future, it would “result in termination of employment forcause.”[23] I do not accept Mr. Flowers’ characterization of the final paragraph in the disciplinaryletter. It is not supported by the clear wording of the letter. Further, it is relevant to determinehow Mr. Chandran, as a reasonable, non-human resources professional, would interpret this. Themeaning based on the plain wording of the letter has been recognized by Ms. Kenney, the Bank’srepresentative who conducted the employee survey that led to the allegations against Mr.Chandran. She was familiar with and testified with respect to the disciplinary policies followedby the Bank. She was aware of the Bank’s employment policies and was the person who metwith Mr. Flowers with respect to the allegations against Mr. Chandran. She was the Bank“professional” dealing with this matter. Although Mr. Flowers testified that Ms. Bernardino inEmployee Relations was consulted, she did not testify and no one presented evidence withrespect to the extent of her involvement. Furthermore, it appears from Ms. Kenney’s evidencethat the reason for her involvement was the fact that Ms. Kenney was away on vacation at thetime this disciplinary letter was being drafted.2011 ONSC 777 (CanLII)[24] I find that a reasonable person receiving this disciplinary letter would conclude that it wasintended to provide Mr. Chandran with a final warning not to engage in any “further behaviourof this type”, which referred to the behaviour the Bank concluded he was guilty of, and whichwas referred to in the letter. This finding is based on:(a) the clear wording of this letter;(b) counsel’s advice that this is a disciplinary letter; and(c) Ms. Kenney’s evidence of her interpretation of the meaning of the letter;It was reasonable for Mr. Chandran to conclude that should the Bank believe that he engaged insuch prohibited behaviour (in his future employment), the intention of the Bank was to terminatehis employment without further warning.[25] Counsel for the Bank argues that notwithstanding the fact that this is a disciplinary letter,it had no obligation to conduct an investigation into the allegations made against Mr. Chandranand that by virtue of the written employment contract which was signed by Mr. Chandraneighteen years ago, it had the right to transfer him to any position it deemed appropriate. TheBank does not plead that it had cause to remove Mr. Chandran’s supervisory duties and assignhim to a different position. Rather, it is the position of the Bank that the two positions offered toMr. Chandran were comparable and did not constitute a demotion and a constructive dismissal.[26] The Bank does not plead that it had cause to issue a disciplinary letter. The Bank’sposition that it had the right to transfer Mr. Chandran is maintained, notwithstanding the fact thatthe Bank did not engage in any type of inquiry to determine if the allegations made by theemployees to Ms. Kenney were true. It is alleged by Mr. Chandran that he was not given anopportunity to properly defend himself against these allegations. The Bank’s position is that it