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.
166-18-29187 to 29191 (2001 PSSRB 8)
Rowsell v. Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces
Before: A. Bertrand
Appearances: T. Hamilton, for the Grievor; B. Dagenais, for the Employer
Decision rendered: January 24, 2001
Indefinite suspension – Termination (disciplinary) – Military mess – Sale, consumption and unauthorized removal of alcohol – Estoppel – Procedural defects – Progressive discipline – the grievor was a Mess supervisor at a Canadian Forces Base – months after he had received a personal warning in relation to concerns raised about the sale, consumption and unauthorized removal of alcohol at the Messes, the grievor became the subject of an investigation – the employer suspended the grievor without pay – following its decision that the grievor committed misconduct on four occasions, the employer terminated his employment – the grievor grieved both the suspension and the termination of his employment – the employer argued that the grievor took serious advantage of his supervisory position at the Mess – it added that the grievor intentionally lied to and misled his employer – it further submitted that the grievor admitted to all the allegations against him – it also stressed that, at the hearing, when asked whether he would have changed his conduct had he not been disciplined, the grievor responded "probably" – the grievor argued that part of his conduct was based on past practice which had not been condemned by the employer and that the employer was estopped to consider discipline in that regard – he also alleged that the rules on which the employer relied apply to military personnel and not to civilian personnel like himself – he further submitted that the disciplinary process did not respect the requirements of his collective agreement – the adjudicator found that there were no procedural defects in the way which the disciplinary process was handled in this case – even if there had been, the adjudication would have cured them – she found that the grievor had been personally warned of the employer's concerns about the sale, consumption and unauthorized removal of alcohol at the Messes and that he decided to ignore them – she rejected the estoppel argument raised by the grievor – the adjudicator further found that the grievor showed a lack of rehabilitative potential.