Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats. Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving.
466-HC-280 (2001 PSSRB 37)
Séguin v. House of Commons
Before: G. Giguère
Appearances: A. Bakaity, for the Grievor; C. Hofley, for the Employer
Decision rendered: April 24, 2001
Termination (disciplinary) – Intimidating behaviour – Assault on supervisor – Consumption of drugs – Christmas party – House of Commons – the grievor had been working for three years in the Maintenance Service Support Unit of the House of Commons when the employer terminated his employment – the reasons alleged in support of the termination were that, at a Christmas party, the grievor intimidated co-workers and supervisors, assaulted a supervisor and forced his acting supervisor to smoke hashish on that occasion – the Christmas party was held during working hours on the employer's premises – the employer submitted that the grievor's behaviour cannot be tolerated in the workplace, especially at the House of Commons – the employer took the position that the events leading to the grievor's termination occurred at work while the grievor was on duty – the grievor argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the bond of trust was permanently broken – he also submitted that no progressive discipline had been applied in this case – he added that the Christmas party was a private function – the adjudicator found that the employer had established by clear and cogent evidence that the grievor's misconduct had occurred – on the other hand, the grievor did not present a plausible explanation for his misconduct – the adjudicator found that the conduct had happened on the employer's premises while the grievor was off duty – he further found that termination was justified in the circumstances – there were no mitigating factors justifying altering that decision.
Re Andres Wines (B.C.) Ltd. and Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers, Local 300 (1996), 53 L.A.C. (4th) 247; Mailing (166-2-10158); Re Madawaska Hardwood Flooring Inc. and I.W.A.-Canada, Local 1-1000 (1995), 51 L.A.C. (4th) 379; Re Coast Capri Hotel and Hotel, Restaurant and Culinary Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 40 (2000), 87 L.A.C. (4th) 345; Re Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. and Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, Local 414 (1992), 27 L.A.C. (4th) 165.