FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Information
Unfair labour practice - Complaint under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act alleging a violation of subparagraph 8(2)(c)(ii) of the Act - Employer accused of preventing employee from exercising a right to which she was entitled under the Act - complainant claimed that certain offensive remarks made by one of the respondents showed that employer was trying to intimidate her so that she would not exercise her rights - at the time her complaint was made, complainant had presented a list of grievances alleging harassment - Board concluded that remarks made by one of the respondents were uncalled for and employer should have dealt severely with him - however, evidence did not show that respondents had attempted, through intimidation, threat or imposition of penalties, to prevent complainant from exercising any right to which she was entitled under the Act. Complaint dismissed.
Decision Content
File: 161-2-789 Public Service Staff Before the Public Service Relations Act Staff Relations Board BETWEEN HÉLÈNE GERTRUDE RAINVILLE Complainant and D.C. Dingwall, R.A. Quail, G. Scott and E. Peake Respondents RE: Complaint under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act
Before: Yvon Tarte, Deputy Chairperson For the Complainant: Georges Nadeau, Public Service Alliance of Canada For the Respondents: Guy Blouin, Counsel Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, April 3, 1996
Decision Page 1 DECISION According to her complaint filed under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Ms. Rainville alleges that the respondents failed to observe the prohibition contained in subparagraph 8(2)(c)(ii) of the Act which prohibits anyone to:
(...) seek by intimidation, threat of dismissal or any other kind of threat, by the imposition of a pecuniary or any other penalty or by any other means to compel an employee: (...)
(ii) to refrain from exercising any other right under this Act.
Ms. Rainville claims that certain comments made by Mr. Peake at a meeting with employees show that (translation) “the employer was trying to intimidate and poison the atmosphere of the work place” and accordingly he “was trying to intimidate the complainant so that she would refrain from exercising her rights under the PSSRA”.
THE EVIDENCE Ms. Rainville began working for Public Works and Government Services Canada in January 1993 in the Aerospace, Marine and Electronics Systems Sector. She was the secretary to the Senior Director, Gavin Scott. The complainant was on maternity leave from June 2 to December 11, 1995.
Prior to leaving on maternity leave, Ms. Rainville filed a series of grievances in which she alleged acts of harassment toward her by several people, including her supervisor, Mr. Scott. At the time Ms. Rainville filed the instant complaint, the above- mentioned grievances were still being considered by the Department.
In September 1995, the complainant learned that a manager, Ernie Peake, had made unpleasant comments about her at two meetings with employees.
Joanne Descoteaux testified that Mr. Peake had stated at a meeting, held on September 5, 1995 and attended by some employees from his sector, that Mr. Scott
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 2 was returning after allegations of harassment made by “that nut case”. Ms.Descoteaux also stated that Mr. Peake had gone on to say that everyone knew that this person was a “nut case” who made a great deal of noise and that she was listened to because of the people she knew. Lastly, Mr. Peake asked the employees present not to repeat what he had said so that he would not get into trouble. According to Ms. Descoteaux, it was obvious that Mr. Peake was speaking about Ms. Rainville since one of the employees present referred to her specifically by name following Mr. Peake’s comments.
On September 19, 1995, Ms. Descoteaux attended another meeting at which Mr.Peake again attacked Ms. Rainville saying that she had “wreaked havoc” throughout the Department.
Other employees testified to support Ms. Descoteaux’s statements. When Ms. Rainville was informed of Mr. Peake’s comments at the above- mentioned meetings, she decided to file a complaint against the Honourable David C. Dingwall, Ronald A. Quail, Gavin Scott and Ernie Peake. At the start of the hearing into the complaint, Mr. Nadeau indicated on behalf of Ms. Rainville that the complaint against Mr. Dingwall and Mr. Quail had been withdrawn.
THE ARGUMENTS For the complainant The public comments made by Mr. Peake at the meetings in September 1995 clearly intimidated Ms. Rainville in an effort to compel her to refrain from exercising her rights under the Act.
For his part, Mr. Peake failed to exercise the restraint that is required of all managers. It is important in a work place for employees to be able to file grievances without being subject to harassment.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 3 For the respondents Mr. Peake displayed all of the restraint required of a manager. The burden of proof in this matter is on Ms. Rainville and she was not able to discharge it. The various witnesses did not reveal any intimidation intended to compel the complainant to refrain from exercising her rights.
The simple fact of making a negative comment does not meet the requirements of section 8 of the Act. The Board ruled in Dalphy (File 161-2-690) that the serious nature of a complaint required strong and unequivocal evidence.
None of the evidence presented involved Mr. Scott. The complaint against him should be dismissed. Lastly, it was not proved that the comments attributed to Mr. Peake, although negative, had intimidated Ms. Rainville so as to compel her to refrain from exercising her rights. Indeed, it could be said that Ms. Descoteaux is responsible for any intimidation related to this file since she repeated Mr. Peake’s words to Ms. Rainville. Moreover, Mr. Peake never specifically mentioned the complainant’s name. Ms. Rainville’s complaint should therefore be dismissed.
REASONS FOR DECISION I accept that Mr. Peake made the comments attributed to him by Ms. Descoteaux during her testimony. Moreover, it is clear that the person at whom these disagreeable and misplaced remarks were aimed was indeed Ms. Rainville.
Mr. Peake’s behaviour was unacceptable. A responsible manager cannot conduct himself in such a foolish manner. Further, it is unacceptable for an employer in such circumstances not to require the manager to apologize as quickly as possible. In order to ensure a healthy work place, the employer must act quickly and definitively in such situations to correct the problem and minimize the negative consequences that can result from such actions.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 4 Having said this, I must conclude that the evidence did not show in any way that the respondents tried by intimidation, threat or the imposition of a penalty to compel Ms. Rainville to refrain from exercising any of her rights under the Act.
Accordingly, Ms. Rainville’s complaint is dismissed. Yvon Tarte Deputy Chairperson
OTTAWA, May 2, 1996 Certified true translation
Serge Lareau
Public Service Staff Relations Board