FPSLREB Decisions

File: 161-2-763 Public Service Staff Before the Public Service Relations Act Staff Relations Board BETWEEN WALTER G. HASLETT Complainant and LT. COL. WILLIAM F. GEE AND NATIONAL DEFENCE

Respondents RE: Complaint under Section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act

Before: Muriel Korngold Wexler, Deputy Chairperson For the Complainant: Georges Nadeau, Public Service Alliance of Canada For the Respondents: Roger Lafrenière, Counsel Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 22 and 23 and November 29, 1995.

Decision DECISION Page 1 Mr. Walter G. Haslett has been a civilian employee at the Canadian Forces Base Shilo (CFB Shilo) since 1971. On March 17, 1995, Mr. Haslett filed a complaint under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (the Act) whereby he alleged that the respondents violated subparagraph 8(2)(c)(ii) of the Act. Mr. Haslett alleged that during a grievance meeting held on July 20, 1993, respondent Lt. Col. Gee violated section 8 of the Act "by using his position of authority to intimidate [him] by threatening to begin discharge proceedings if [he] proceeded with [his] grievance”.

EVIDENCE Mr. Georges Nadeau, representative Mr. Keith Hillis and the complainant to testify. The respondents were represented by Mr. Roger Lafrenière, counsel, who called respondent Lt. Col. William F. Gee and Mrs. Joyce Heenan as witnesses. In addition, the parties submitted 36 exhibits.

Mr. Haslett testified that he has been employed as a civilian employee at CFB Shilo since September 1971. Mr. Haslett worked as a carpenter in the carpentry shop until 1975 and then, for a period of two years, he became the carpentry shop supervisor (GL-WOW-10-C-3). He was responsible for the maintenance of the “German” buildings at the Base. The Shilo Military Base serves as a training base for NATO. In 1980, his position was upgraded to GL-CO-1-10-C-3 and he became a Construction Inspector until 1991. In October 1991, that shop was disbanded and Mr. Haslett’s position became redundant. Thus, Mr. Haslett was moved to the Contracts Cell as a Contract Inspector effective October 21, 1991 (Exhibits 1 and 2).

Mr. Haslett explained that during the summer of 1993, his immediate supervisor was Master Warrant Officer Larry Boyd. Mr. Boyd supervised three contracts inspectors and his immediate supervisor was Mr. Rob Reisz, a civilian engineer. Major William F. Wawrychuk was Head of the Department and Mr. Reisz’s immediate supervisor. Lt. Col. McLeod was the Base Technical Services Officer whereas Mr. Pierre Boucher was the Base Commander. Respondent Lt. Col. Gee was the Base Administration Officer and Mrs. Joyce Heenan was the Base Civilian Personnel Officer. Mr. Haslett produced three Civilian Performance Review Reports covering the period April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1995 (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5). Mr. Haslett described the circumstances which led to this complaint.

Public Service Staff Relations Board

of Mr. Walter G. Haslett, called

Decision Page 2 In the spring of 1991, Mr. Haslett received a five-day suspension on grounds of insubordination. He presented a grievance against this disciplinary action which he referred to adjudication. The reference to adjudication was scheduled to be heard May 27, 1992, but the grievance was settled the day before the adjudication hearing; the five-day suspension was reduced to two days. Thus, Mr. Haslett was of the impression that his personnel file would be “cleared” as of May 28, 1992. In addition, he testified that he had been advised by his union representative to leave the matter alone until his next performance appraisal due in March or April 1993. When Mr. Haslett received the Civilian Performance Review Report in 1993, he went to look at his personnel file with his union representative and the shop steward, Mr. Keith Hillis. Mrs. Joyce Heenan was present when Mr. Haslett reviewed his personnel file. Mr. Haslett found that his personnel file contained documents that he thought should have been removed. Mr. Haslett discussed with Mrs. Heenan this matter and he flagged the documents he wanted removed from his personnel file. Mrs. Heenan replied that she would discuss it with the appropriate authority. Then, on June 21, 1993, Mr. Haslett received a letter from Mrs. Heenan advising him that there was no reason to remove any further documentation from his personnel file. She confirmed that all direct reference to previous disciplinary action during his tenure with the CFB Shilo had been removed (Exhibit 6). Mr. Haslett declared that he never asked Mr. P. J. Graves, the person who occupied the Base Civilian Personnel Officer position before Mrs. Heenan, to remove the documents in question from his personnel file.

Mr. Haslett was not satisfied with this response. Thus, on July 9, 1993, he presented a grievance (Exhibit 7). Major Wawrychuk was the first step officer; however, the grievance was transmitted directly to Lt. Col. Gee, the second level of the grievance procedure. On July 20, 1993, Lt. Col. Gee held a grievance hearing with respect to this grievance. It is at this meeting that the alleged events occurred. The meeting in question was held in Lt. Col. Gee’s office in the presence of Lt. Col. Gee, Mrs. Heenan, Mr. Hillis and the complainant. The complainant had never met Lt. Col. Gee before so the meeting started with introductions. The complainant and the respondent have different recollections of what transpired and what was said at this meeting. I will, therefore, summarize the testimony of each of the witnesses in attendance at this meeting.

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 3 All witnesses do agree on who was present at this meeting but none could remember where Mr. Keith Hillis was seated, including Mr. Hillis himself.

Mr. Haslett testified that the meeting took place at the Base Administrator's office (Lt. Col. Gee's office). Mr. Haslett testified that he recalled 98% of what transpired at that meeting. However, he could not remember how long the meeting lasted and the exact words used by Lt. Col. Gee. According to Mr. Haslett, the meeting started around 10:00 a.m. Lt. Col. Gee introduced himself since Mr. Haslett had never met him before. Then, Lt. Col. Gee proceeded to read Mr. Haslett's grievance and, according to Mr. Haslett, it is then that Lt. Col. Gee said: "Mr. Haslett, you are a problem employee"; that the personnel file was not Mr. Haslett's but management's; that it was up to management to decide which documents should be kept on or removed; and that there were two files on some employees at CFB Shilo. At this point, Mr. Hillis interrupted Lt. Col. Gee and queried about this two-file system. Lt. Col. Gee replied that when the matter in dispute would get to adjudication, the second file would be promptly destroyed. Lt. Col. Gee added that Mr. Haslett's former supervisor might be going to jail and if Mr. Haslett "supported" him, he might end up there too. Then, Lt. Col. Gee went through each document that Mr. Haslett had flagged and wanted removed from his personnel file. Lt. Col. Gee made comments as he reviewed each document. Mr. Haslett declared that Lt. Col. Gee did not want to hear his side of the story. Messrs. Hillis and Haslett were unable to make representations and there was very little discussion on Mr. Haslett's side. Lt. Col. Gee did agree to remove a “couple of documents” from the file and he threw them in the trash. Lt. Col. Gee discussed each document indicating which would stay and which would be removed. Then, about half-way through this review of the documents, Lt. Col. Gee said: "I will make a deal with you. If you sign this waiver form, National Defence Canada would take no further responsibility for your stress at the workplace and the Department would take off from your personnel file any documents you want”. (Mr. Haslett was the only witness who mentioned this). Mr. Haslett added that he tried to talk but Lt. Col. Gee did not let him. They had some discussion after this offer and Mr. Haslett indicated that "the matter was more provincial than federal" and the discussion concerning the documents continued. Lt. Col. Gee told Mr. Haslett that the latter did not need "to explain because the documents were well documented". Lt. Col. Gee remained seated behind his desk throughout this discussion. The others were seated

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 4 at a long table attached to the desk; Mrs. Heenan on one side and Mr. Haslett on the other side of this long table.

According to Mr. Haslett at some point of the discussion, Lt. Col. Gee stood up, walked around and sat closer to him. It is then that Lt. Col. Gee said to Mr. Haslett: "I have come closer so you can see the colour of my eyes" as he sat on the chair next to him. Lt. Col. Gee added that he would get a "blast of shit from BCPO" (Mrs. Heenan) and he looked at Mrs. Heenan who nodded back. Lt. Col. Gee continued discussing the documents and making comments. Lt. Col. Gee commented about Mr. Haslett's work performance. Then he said: "Mr. Haslett, you have two choices: drop your grievance and go back to work, or proceed with your grievance and I will start discharge proceedings" ("the choice"). Lt. Col. Gee advised Mr. Haslett to talk it over with his union representative and get back to him as soon as possible with his intentions. The meeting ended with this "choice". (Lt. Col. Gee and Mrs. Heenan declared that this choice was never offered).

When they left the meeting, Messrs. Hillis and Haslett discussed the matter and Mr. Hillis told Mr. Haslett "to drop it". In addition, Mr. Haslett also discussed the matter with Mr. Brian Molsberry, President of the Local, who said: "What will you get out of it, you will be singled out more". Mr. Haslett told Mr. Hillis before he received the grievance reply from Lt. Col. Gee that he wanted to withdraw the grievance. However, Lt. Col. Gee replied to the grievance on July 22, 1993 (Exhibit 8). Mr. Hillis was supposed to advise Lt. Col. Gee of Mr. Haslett's wish to withdraw his grievance. Mr. Hillis never advised Lt. Col. Gee of Mr. Haslett’s intention to withdraw his grievance. Mr. Haslett was further advised that if he wanted to file a complaint on grounds of harassment against Lt. Col. Gee, the local union would support him.

Mr. Haslett declared that on August 11, 1993, he received a two-day suspension from Major Wawrychuk concerning an allegation of harassment by Mr. Boyd (Exhibit 9) and he did not present a grievance against it because he did not want to appear in front of Lt. Col. Gee again.

Later on, in 1993, all civilian personnel at CFB Shilo were invited to an information session on harassment held by the Public Service Commission (PSC). Mr. Denis Lamirande was the person in charge of this session attended by Mr. Haslett. As a result, Mr. Haslett mailed a complaint to Mr. Lamirande. Mr. Haslett could not Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 5 produce in evidence a copy of this complaint and the date of the filing of this complaint with the PSC was the subject of extensive cross-examination by Mr. Lafrenière. However, Mr. Haslett did submit in evidence Mr. Lamirande's acknowledgment of this complaint dated December 2, 1993 (Exhibit 10). Mr. Lamirande advised Mr. Haslett that he had to take his concerns to his Department first before the PSC Investigations Directorate could investigate his complaint. Mr. Haslett testified that he did not understand this reply so he telephoned Mr. Lamirande who had to explain that he had to pursue his complaint through his Department first.

The date of the letter to Mr. Lamirande became an issue because on November 27, 1993, Mr. Haslett alledgedly uttered threats against Mrs. Heenan for which on December 2, 1993, the employer imposed 11.5 days of suspension (Board file 166-2-25825). Counsel for the respondents submitted that Mr. Haslett presented this complaint because of the November 27, 1993 incident and in light of the seriousness of the infraction. Mr. Haslett denied any connection between these two matters.

On February 1, 1994, Mr. Haslett drafted a departmental complaint and he gave it to his union representative (Exhibits 11 and 13). The employer replied to it on February 3, 1994 (Exhibits 12 and 14). An investigation was conducted by Ms. Judy Krushen, Senior Staff Officer, Air Command, Winnipeg, and the employer replied to the complaint on May 5, 1994 (Exhibit 14). The complaint was dismissed by Col. J.L.H.L.P. Boucher, Base Commander. Then, Mr. Haslett discussed this matter with his union and completed a form for a complaint under section 23 of the Act. He sent it to his “union in Ottawa” in September 1994 (Exhibit 15). The form was eventually redrafted and filed with this Board on March 17, 1995, and is the subject of this decision.

Mr. Haslett received a copy of the Department's investigation report of his complaint and other information relating to the meeting of July 20, 1993 through a request under the Access to Information Act (Exhibits 16 and 17). Exhibit 16 is a memorandum from Ms. Krushen to Lt. Col. Gee asking him to provide examples to substantiate his statement that "he went over all possible examples as to why his behaviour should be modified". Lt. Col. Gee had told Ms. Krushen that he had done

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 6 this at the July 20, 1993 meeting. Thus, on April 8, 1994, Lt. Col. Gee replied that to the best of his recollection he referred to the following examples (Exhibit 17):

1 - that he got transferred to Contract Supervisor because he could not work on a crew with others;

2 - that he told the ABCEO to "go shove your truck up your ..." 3 - that the shared use U-Drive did not work out between he and Mr. Abbott for whatever reason

4 - that his performance appraisals all made mention of / or assigned a low rating to his ability to get along with people

5 - that he had submitted a series of grievances that all went to adjudication but that in none of which was his position upheld except for the arbitrary workers compensation claim - was he making frivolous grievances? Was he failing to accept responsibility for his (inappropriate) actions? Did he have difficulty with people in authority?

6 - that he had to learn to get along with people 7 - that he had to ensure he was not becoming an administrative burden

Lt. Col. Gee added that there were possibly more examples because they were reviewing Mr. Haslett's work history and it was at this point that he told Mr. Haslett that he did not need to hear more of his substantiation because it was all very well documented (Exhibit 17). Mr. Haslett did not agree with Lt. Col. Gee's facts. Mr. Haslett explained in response to Exhibit 17 that: (1) it was false to state that he got transferred to the Contract Inspector position because he could not work on a crew with others;

(2) there is an adjudication decision in this regard (but he provided no file number nor reference). [During the presentation of the arguments in this case, this adjudicator learned that this statement resulted in a one-day suspension (Board file 166-2-20738, rendered by Adjudicator T.W. Brown.)]

(3) it is completely false; (4) it is not true even though his personal evaluation reports contain comments to this effect;

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 7 (5) Mr. Haslett did not recall raising this at the July 20, 1993 meeting; (6), (7) Lt. Col. Gee did not mention these at the July 20, 1993 meeting. In cross-examination, Mr. Haslett admitted that he had presented various harassment grievances but it was only in November 1993 when Mr. Lamirande conducted the seminar that he became aware of what constituted harassment. Mr. Lafrenière showed Mr. Haslett five documents, some dating back to 1988, concerning a number of grievances filed by Mr. Haslett alleging harassment. Mr. Haslett recognized Exhibit 23, a grievance presented on April 6, 1988, wherein he alleges "intimidation and personal harassment by Cpt. Tracey". Also, on April 6, 1988, Mr. Haslett presented a grievance alleging personal harassment by MWO Henry (Exhibit 22). On June 20, 1988, he presented a third grievance alleging "personal harassment" by management because he had received a written reprimand (Exhibit 21). On March 20, 1990, Mr. Haslett presented a grievance alleging that he was being subjected to harassment because three persons had violated Article M-1 and clause M-1.01 of the Master Agreement (Exhibit 20). On June 7, 1990, Mr. Haslett presented another grievance indicating that management was harassing him (Exhibit 19). Then on April 29, 1991, Mr. Haslett presented a grievance on the grounds that MWO Mills was harassing him (Exhibit 18).

Mr. Haslett declared that it was Mr. Lamirande's session that was the prompting factor in filing his complaint. Mr. Haslett recognized that he had not been harassed in November 1993, but he was going back to the July 20, 1993 meeting. Mr. Haslett could not recall when he prepared his letter to Mr. Lamirande who acknowledged receiving it on December 2, 1993. It was possible that he sent the letter on November 26, 1993, but he was not certain. Mr. Haslett recognized that he received Lt. Col. Gee's letter of November 30, 1993, informing him that he was to attend a meeting to discuss the events of November 27, 1993, when he was alleged to have uttered threats against Mrs. Heenan (Exhibit 24). This allegation resulted in a 11.5-day suspension and is the subject of a reference to adjudication (Board file 166-2-25825) which was heard June 23 and November 29, 1995. Mr. Haslett was adamant that he wrote to Mr. Lamirande before he received the letter of Lt. Col. Gee informing him to attend a meeting concerning alleged threats against Mrs. Heenan (Exhibit 24).

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 8 Mr. Haslett declared that at the grievance meeting of July 20, 1993, Lt. Col. Gee finished dealing with the grievance when the meeting ended with "the choice" and then he and Mr. Hillis left the meeting. All through the meeting, the discussion went on concerning the documents Mr. Haslett wanted removed from his personnel file. According to Mr. Haslett, when Lt. Col. Gee got up from his desk and sat beside him he was still dealing with the grievance. The grievance hearing was only over when Messrs. Hillis and Haslett left the meeting. Mr. Haslett added that he and Lt. Col. Gee "understood each other and [they] did raise [their] voices". Mr. Haslett was upset; he could not believe what Lt. Col. Gee was telling him. Mr. Haslett declared that Lt. Col. Gee did not say to him when he sat down next to him that he wanted to discuss his attitude. However, Mr. Haslett added that he was upset and he could not recall very well the discussion. Mr. Haslett remembered Lt. Col. Gee giving him "the choice" twice but he could not recall the exact words. Mr. Haslett declared that Lt. Col. Gee used the expression "discharge proceedings immediately" and not the word "release". Mr. Haslett did not know at the time what was on his personnel file to warrant his discharge.

Mr. Haslett indicated that Exhibit 13, a document he prepared and dated February 4, 1994, reflects what Lt. Col. Gee said at the July 20, 1993 meeting which he (Mr. Haslett) considered to be offensive:

1. A known fact that I was a problem employee. 2. Moving to seat (sic) beside me so that I could see the colour of his eyes.

3. That my former supervisor may be going to jail and that if I wanted to support him that I could end up there too.

4. Said that there were two files on everybody and if it came to an adjudication they would be destroyed immediately.

5. Said that the B.C.P.O. (Joyce) would probably give him a blast for what he had said after we would leave the grievance hearing.

6. Said he did not want to hear my side of the story that it was very well documented.

7. That I had two choices either withdraw the grievance or that he would start discharge proceeding immediately at that point my right to grieve was taken away from me.

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 9 8. Said that I should talk it over with my union representitive (sic) and let him know the outcome as he was serious.

Mr. Haslett could not recall saying anything at the July 20, 1993 meeting when Lt. Col. Gee mentioned twice "the choice". Mr. Haslett added that Lt. Col. Gee said it a first time five minutes into the meeting and then some 20 minutes later just before he and Mr. Hillis left the meeting. Mr. Haslett explained that during this meeting he felt abused by Lt. Col. Gee. Mr. Haslett felt that he was "nothing" and he should not even be there. Mr. Haslett denied that Lt. Col. Gee said to him to "clean up his act" or he would start release proceedings. During cross-examination, Mr. Haslett recalled his meeting with Ms. Krushen on March 29, 1994. Mr. Lafrenière submitted in evidence the notes of Mr. Haslett's interview with Ms. Krushen of that day (Exhibit 25). Ms. Krushen took notes of the meeting and Mr. Haslett read them and signed the document on April 8, 1994 (Exhibit 25). Mr. Haslett declared that he read and signed the document but he did not pay too much attention to it. In Exhibit 25, Mr. Haslett indicated that "Lt. Col. Gee mentioned twice during the conversation that [he] had two choices, that [he] had to clean up [his] act". However, during his cross-examination, Mr. Haslett testified that these were not his words, that Lt. Col. Gee was serious concerning "the choice" and that he was going to discharge him if he proceeded with the grievance. Mr. Haslett disputed a number of the statements he gave to Ms. Krushen on March 29, 1994 and which are reproduced in Exhibit 25. He indicated that he did not want to say in front of Ms. Krushen "blast of shit" so he told her that Lt. Col. Gee said "I will probably get into trouble and I will wear it" when he was about to move to sit next to him. Mr. Haslett told Ms. Krushen that the date of his letter to Mr. Lamirande was November 26, 1993. However, in cross-examination, Mr. Haslett said that he could not recall where he got this date and that the letter had been written at work on a Friday and mailed on a Saturday. Mr. Haslett told Ms. Krushen that the July 20, 1993 meeting lasted 10 to 15 minutes but that he offered this because when "[he] left the meeting, [he] was confused". But during the adjudication hearing, he indicated that the meeting had lasted 30 to 35 minutes maximum but he could not be certain, it could also have lasted 10, 15 or 30 minutes.