The Department of Health (the employer) claimed that on 20 occasions the grievor claimed travel expenses but he either did not make the trips and remained home or was actually in another location for personal reasons -- the grievor challenged some of the details of his travel claims but the main thrust of his case was that the allegation of abuse of travel claims was a fabrication by various people who were involved in a long-standing conspiracy against him -- the grievor alleged that he had been dealt with improperly when he was hired and that another person had been given a job which should have belonged to him, thereby becoming his supervisor, and that these two events were symptomatic of a conspiracy that ultimately resulted in the fabrication of travel claims in order to get rid of him -- the grievor’s supervisor, upon reviewing some of his travel claims, felt that there were inconsistencies in some travel claims submitted by the grievor -- she requested that her assistant obtain additional information from the grievor -- the grievor refused to provide the information requested and it was decided to review other of the grievor’s claims to see if there was a pattern -- the grievor’s supervisor then learned that the grievor’s travel claims were being audited by headquarters as a result of a routine audit -- the grievor was suspended without pay pending the outcome of the investigation by headquarters -- following the investigation, the grievor’s employment was terminated -- the grievor also sought to introduce the income tax records of his supervisor arguing that it was relevant to another grievance (which grievance was not before the adjudicator) and a human rights complaint, evidence properly part of other matters not admissible -- the grievor requested that the adjudicator recuse himself because he was biased and “exhibited a lack of fairness” -- request refused -- the grievor requested that the proceedings be recorded, which request was allowed subject to certain conditions but, in the end, the proceedings were not recorded -- during the course of the employer’s evidence, the grievor made an application seeking dismissal of the employer’s case -- the grievor denied that he was bringing a motion for non-suit or an application of insufficient evidence, and the Board advised the parties that the hearing would continue -- the adjudicator denied the admission into evidence of an affidavit by the grievor as it was intended to put evidence before the adjudicator without being examined about it -- in his motion regarding the affidavit, the grievor alleged that he had not been given the opportunity to have a union representative, thus rendering the discipline against him void -- the adjudicator rejected the motion, finding that the issue had not been grieved or dealt with by the grievance procedure and could not be considered now -- in any event, he found that the grievor’s application would fail, as the purpose of the meeting was investigatory rather than disciplinary and the right to union representation does not extend, under the collective agreement, to the investigatory process -- also, the grievor was given the opportunity by the employer to have a representative present -- the adjudicator held that in cases of serious alleged misconduct the employer must demonstrate by clear, convincing and cogent evidence that the misconduct occurred -- the grievor advised the adjudicator that he had decided not to give evidence -- the adjudicator held he was entitled to draw certain conclusions from this fact -- reasonable latitude was given to the grievor, given that he was representing himself -- the grievor often suggested his own witnesses should be declared hostile -- the adjudicator found that a witness is not hostile simply because they do not give the answer that was expected -- the adjudicator held that there was no evidence that anyone had sabotaged or tried to sabotage his appointment -- the adjudicator also held that there was no evidence of a conspiracy against the grievor involving the appointment of someone else into the position that he wanted -- the adjudicator also held that there was no evidence of a conspiracy against the grievor in the fabrication of his travel claims -- in reviewing the individual travel claims, he found that most were false -- the adjudicator concluded that the suspension without pay was an appropriate response to the circumstances -- he also concluded that the grievor had made false travel claims on a number of occasions for a total of over $19,000, and had been absent from work without permission on a number of occasions -- while there were mitigating factors, such as the grievor’s positive work record, there were also aggravating factors, the most significant of which were a lack of acceptance of any wrongdoing and a lack of remorse -- indeed, the grievor made aggressive challenges to reasonable requests and used inflammatory language in pursuing unfounded allegations of conspiracy, which the adjudicator found was an aggravating factor -- this was not a case of honest mistake or inflated amounts -- the misconduct was premeditated, frequent and very serious -- proven fraud requires termination unless such a result would be manifestly unjust or unreasonable in the circumstances -- there were no extenuating circumstances in this case.

Grievance dismissed.