Katchin v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Full Text

166-32-31152 (2003 PSSRB 24)
Katchin v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Before: E. Henry
Appearances: S. Eadie and D. Balfe, for the Grievor; R. Jaworski, for the Employer
Decision rendered: March 13, 2003

Suspension (3 days) – Comments of a violent or threatening nature – Credibility – Remedy – the grievor and another veterinarian, P, worked together at the same work location for a short period of time – she alleged that the grievor said to her that he was fantasizing about going into the Regional Office and treating it as a "free fire zone" – in response to her enquiry as to what was a "free fire zone", she alleged that he said it meant "to shoot everyone on sight" and that he then named three specific employees – P testified that she was worried by the grievor's comments because, in her opinion, he "was not completely normal" and she knew that he possessed guns – however, at least a month passed before she related the incident to the employer – following an investigation, the employer imposed a three-day suspension without pay upon the grievor – the grievor conceded that, on more than one occasion, he had said that the Regional Office was a free fire zone but that only meant that "there were no friendly forces there" – he denied ever saying that he meant "shoot everyone on sight" – the adjudicator noted that the version of events which P related to the employer differed from her memory of events at the hearing – originally she had told the employer that her conversation with the grievor occurred on two occasions – however, at the hearing, P only remembered one occasion – furthermore, P could not remember the name of the third person at Regional Office to whom the grievor had allegedly referred – the adjudicator concluded that the grievor's use of the term "free fire zone", while unflattering to management and somewhat ambiguous, did not by itself constitute a threatening or violent comment – on a balance of probabilities, the adjudicator preferred the grievor's version of events in relation to the second comment, as his memory appeared to be more complete than P's – the grievor sought remedies in addition to the reversal of his three-day suspension – the adjudicator awarded him compensation for any overtime opportunities which he may have missed – however, she declined to grant his requests for other remedies as, in her opinion, he had not supported these requests with appropriate evidence.

Grievance allowed in part.