The complainant alleged that he had been the victim of retaliatory conduct by the respondent when he refused to perform a search of the drug loo – he felt that the task posed a danger since he had not been provided with training on the donning and doffing of the personal protective equipment – the respondent stated that it had not imposed discipline and asked that the grievance be dismissed as moot – it alleged that it had threatened discipline (but did not implement the financial penalties) because the complainant had failed to follow directions from his correctional manager – it also argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the complaint because the complainant had not properly refused work within the meaning of section 128 of the Code – the adjudicator held that the respondent’s position that there was no valid work refusal under section 128 did not comport with the actions of its representatives – the complainant had, at the outset, reported the essential circumstances of his refusal, even though he specifically invoked section 128 only in a later conversation, and provided sufficient information to allow the respondent to understand that the situation involved section 128 – the complainant was motivated by a genuine safety concern – the respondent’s argument that searching the drug loo was a “normal condition of employment” advanced a substantive rather than jurisdictional argument that more properly belonged in a case reviewing the determination of an existence of danger rather than a case examining an allegation of reprisal – the respondent violated section 147 of the Code by threatening to impose disciplinary action – the threat related, at least in part, to the complainant’s refusal to search the drug loo – a cease-and-desist order was not required – a declaration of a violation was sufficient corrective action – the respondent was ordered to pay the complainant overtime for the time he remained at the workplace waiting to be relieved from his post.

Objection dismissed.

Complaint allowed.