Workplace drama is like a leaky pipe in your basement — ignore it long enough, and eventually it will flood the entire house.
A recent British Columbia case involving a union worker, his supervisor, and an alleged affair offers a masterclass in what happens when personal complications aren’t just ignored, but actively mismanaged. The details read like a workplace nightmare: employee discovers his boss is having an affair with his wife, repeatedly asks for help, gets stonewalled, and eventually finds himself terminated by the very person he claims wronged him.
The court allowed the worker to expand his wrongful dismissal lawsuit to include allegations that span three years of what he describes as bad faith conduct. Whether the affair actually happened is a question mark, but the legal framework the judge laid out should make every HR professional and business leader pause.
That’s because the court didn’t dismiss the affair allegations as irrelevant personal drama. Instead, the judge found sufficient connection between the supervisor’s alleged dishonesty about the relationship and his exercise of authority under the employment contract. The ruling suggests that when personal conduct affects workplace dynamics and employment decisions, it can become very much the employer’s business (and headache).
Cascading failures
Think about the cascading failures here. The employee says he brought his concerns to the union president three times. He allegedly asked for basic accommodations — perhaps not having to report to someone he believed was betraying him personally.
Instead, according to his claims, the situation escalated when the supervisor hired the employee’s wife as his personal assistant, turning the workplace into what must have felt like a daily reminder of the alleged betrayal.
The psychological toll is hard to imagine. Showing up each day to work for someone you believe is lying to your face about the most intimate violation possible. The employee eventually completed anger management training at his own expense after being suspended, only to be terminated the day after asking his supervisor to recuse himself from employment decisions due to conflict of interest.
No investigation
Whether you believe the affair allegations or not, the process failures are glaring. No investigation. No attempt at alternative arrangements. No recognition that allowing someone with such an obvious conflict to make unilateral termination decisions might not end well.
The legal principle at work here stems from the Supreme Court of Canada’s recognition that employment relationships carry duties of good faith and honest performance. These aren’t abstract concepts — they have teeth. The B.C. Court of Appeal, in British Columbia v. Taylor, 2024 BCCA 44, has already established that bad faith conduct can span years before termination, encompassing patterns of behaviour that create toxic environments leading to dismissal.
For organizations, this case shows how quickly personal relationships can create legal landmines. The supervisor here wasn’t just anyone — he was the business manager with authority over the employee’s career. When people in positions of power become romantically involved with employees’ family members, the potential for conflicts of interest multiplies exponentially.
Office romance policies
Smart organizations have policies about romantic relationships in the workplace for good reason. But this case suggests those policies might need to be broader. What happens when the relationship isn’t between colleagues, but between a supervisor and an employee’s spouse? How do you handle the inherent conflict that creates?
The answer isn’t to police people’s personal lives, but to recognize when personal relationships create professional problems that demand professional solutions. Investigation procedures, conflict-of-interest protocols, and alternative reporting structures aren’t just bureaucratic box-checking — they’re shields against exactly this kind of legal exposure.
Consider the union’s position in defending this case. Even if they ultimately prevail on the merits, they’re now embroiled in litigation that will air deeply personal allegations in public court records. The reputational risk alone should give pause to any organization facing similar circumstances.
Escalating bad faith?
The plaintiff in this case has crafted a narrative that portrays three years of escalating bad faith, from initial denial through to what they characterize as retaliatory termination. Whether that narrative holds up under scrutiny remains to be seen, but it’s a compelling story that connects personal dishonesty to professional misconduct in ways that resonated enough with the court to allow the worker to expand his lawsuit.
Failure of organizational structure
Perhaps most troubling, in my opinion, is the allegation that the employee had no recourse — he was forced to make his case for continued employment exclusively to the person he believed had wronged him personally. If true, it represents a fundamental failure of organizational structure and basic fairness.
The lesson here isn’t about affairs or romantic entanglements specifically. It’s about what happens when organizations fail to recognize that human beings are complex. Our personal lives inevitably intersect with our professional roles. When those intersections create conflicts, ignoring them doesn’t make them disappear — it often makes them worse.
Every workplace has personal dramas simmering beneath the surface. They will, at some point, surface. So the real question is, “Does your organization have the structures and processes to handle them professionally when they do?” Because when personal becomes professional, and professional becomes legal, the costs can be staggering — dollars, time, and reputation included.
The real tragedy here isn’t just what allegedly happened between these individuals. It’s how a situation that might have been managed with basic fairness and professionalism became a cautionary tale about what happens when institutions fail the people they’re supposed to protect.
