The grievor was terminated from his position as a correctional officer for disciplinary reasons – he was accused of having used force inappropriately against an inmate in the treatment room of the penitentiary – the inmate had slashed himself and has been brought, with his hands cuffed behind his back, to the treatment room – the employer stated that during treatment by the nurse that the grievor, who was one of several correctional officers present, struck the inmate in the face shortly after having been called a “goof” – the strike was seen by one officer and heard by a second – the supervisor saw, through his peripheral vision, only a forward motion of the grievor’s arm but did see the inmate’s head snap back and his eyes tear up – initially, the grievor denied that the assault had happened and that he had done anything wrong – all of those involved in the incident, with the exception of the nurse, testified that they were unwilling to work again with the grievor – the grievor suffered from a disability caused by an illness that had left him with impaired vision, dry eyes and reduced mobility – as a result, he was assigned to the night shift at the penitentiary hospital since his doctor had recommended that his duties preclude contact with inmates – the grievor denied that the issue of avoiding risks came up in return-to-work discussions – the employer’s evidence was that the grievor had been cautioned on two separate occasions not to insert himself in situations with inmates – the adjudicator held that the appropriate standard of proof is more demanding than 50% plus one but how much more is a question in the hands of each individual adjudicator – the adjudicator held that, given his evaluation of the eyewitness testimony and the grievor’s comments made immediately after the event, the grievor had used excessive force when he struck the inmate – the mitigating factors were that no injury resulted from the incident, that the grievor had a long length of service and that his employment record was clean – the aggravating factors were the absence of provocation, the grievor’s lack of acknowledgement and repentance, and the rupture of the bond of trust with his employer – the adjudicator was unable to find sufficient reason to intervene in the employer’s determination that termination was an appropriate and proportional response.

Grievance dismissed.