Goyette v. Treasury Board (Solicitor General Canada - Correctional Service)

Full Text

166-2-31110 (2002 PSSRB 64)
Goyette v. Treasury Board (Solicitor General Canada – Correctional Service)

Before: J.-P. Tessier
Appearances: C. Lalande, for the Grievor; J. Champagne, for the Employer
Decision rendered: July 19, 2002

Financial penalty (1 day's pay) – Insubordination – Vague rules – the grievor worked as a correctional officer at Martineau Community Correctional Centre (CCC), a position classified at the CX-II group and level – in December 1999, Martineau CCC received a new kind of client, namely, people with mental health problems, and while previously the residents used to buy their food themselves, beginning in mid-December, meals had to be provided for the numerous residents – in December 1999, the grievor asked the caterer to provide an extra meal, which she ate with the new residents – toward the end of this month, the Director informed the grievor that while it was important to socialize with the new residents, he could not justify the payment of an extra meal, specifically, that taken by the grievor – however, the Director also told her that things might be different if Martineau CCC began to handle the meal preparations – beginning in January 2000, since there was a resident who could cook, the Director authorized the grievor to buy food so that meals could be prepared at Martineau CCC – thus, the grievor took her meals with the residents on several occasions and other employees did the same – on February 12, 2000, the Director saw the grievor eating with the residents – on February 25, 2000, the Director handed the grievor a disciplinary report in which he blamed her for having eaten a meal with the inmates at the employer's expense without authorization and informed her that he had decided to impose on her a financial penalty equivalent to one day's pay – considering the evidence before him, the adjudicator was satisfied that there was some confusion at the time about whether an employee could take his meals with the residents- the adjudicator concluded that the fact that the grievor ate a meal prepared by the residents of Martineau CCC cannot be considered as insubordination – he determined that it was in good faith that the grievor and other co-workers occasionally ate a meal cooked by the residents and that these actions arose from the ambiguity surrounding the fact that, as of January 2000, meals were prepared at Martineau CCC – the adjudicator ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for the financial penalty it had imposed and to remove from her file all reference to any disciplinary action relating to the February 12, 2000 event.

Grievance allowed.