FPSLREB Decisions

[1]   Ms. Sylvie Goyette has been employed with Correctional Service Canada since 1983. At all material times, she held the position of correctional officer at the Martineau Community Correctional Centre (CCC). The position was classified as CX-II.

[2]   On February 25, 2000, the employer handed Ms. Goyette a disciplinary report (Exhibit E-1). The employer blamed Ms. Goyette for having eaten a meal with inmates at the employer's expense without authorization and imposed a financial penalty on her equivalent to one day's pay.

[3]   On March 24, the grievor filed a grievance challenging the employer's decision.

[4]   The grievance was referred to adjudication on February 6, 2002, and the hearing was held during the week of May 6 to May 10, 2002. The delay in referring the file to adjudication may be explained by a series of events that occurred between 1997 and 2000.

[5]   In fact, ten grievances were referred to adjudication. With the parties' agreement, arguments were heard regarding four grievances at the hearing between May 6 and May 10, 2002:

• grievance 166-2-31111 challenges her temporary reassignment to another workplace in July 1998;

• grievance 166-2-31116 involves a refusal to grant leave for August 29, 1997, and a disciplinary measure imposed for being absent from work on that day;

• grievance 166-2-31117 deals with a refusal to grant leave for the period from December 20, 1999 to January 7, 2000; and

• finally, grievance 166-2-31110 relates to the financial penalty equivalent to one day's pay, imposed for eating a meal at the employer's expense.

[6]   Although separate evidence was led for each of the four grievances, the parties agreed that the evidence placed on one file (including position description, workplace, clients, etc.) could be considered in the other files.

Evidence

[7]   Ms. Sylvie Goyette has worked at the Martineau CCC since 1989. This is a small penal institution that accommodated approximately 50 inmates in 1989. However, since 1990, between 30 and 35 inmates, on average, have been placed there, on day or weekend parole.

[8]   Ms. Goyette was in charge of community programming for the residents (inmates) and performed technical duties related to the operations and program of the Centre.

[9]   Ms.Goyette explained that, in December 1999, the Martineau CCC received a new kind of client, namely, people with mental health problems. Previously, the residents used to buy their food themselves, but beginning in mid-December, meals had to be provided for the numerous residents.

[10]   For the noon and evening meals, a catering service was used. For breakfast, the Martineau CCC provided coffee, croissants, muffin, etc. At the time, Ms. Goyette would occasionally ask the caterer to provide an extra meal, which she ate with the new residents. These people were somewhat disorganized, and it was important to socialize with them.

[11]   Towards the end of December 1999, her Director, Mr. Lussier, agreed that it was important to socialize with the new residents; however, he told Ms. Goyette that he could not justify the payment of an extra meal.

[12]   According to Ms. Goyette, the Director told her that things might be different if, at some point, the Martineau CCC began to handle the meal preparation. In that case, an employee could share a meal with the residents from time to time.

[13]   Accordingly, beginning in January 2000, since there was a resident who could cook, the Director authorized Ms. Goyette to buy food, and meals were prepared at the Martineau CCC.

[14]   Thus, in January and February 2000, Ms. Goyette took her meals with the residents on several occasions. Furthermore, other employees did the same.

[15]   On February 12, the director saw that Ms. Goyette was eating with the residents. He called her into his office and told her that she was not authorized to do so.

[16]   Mr. Lussier pointed out that, in December 1999, he had made it clear that the Martineau CCC would not pay for employees' meals; this was when the meals were catered.

[17]   Mr. Lussier admitted, however, that at the time he was receptive to the idea of the CCC's employing a cook. Furthermore, he authorized the purchase of food for 4 to 6 weeks so that a resident could cook the meals. The Regional Directorate did not agree to Mr. Lussier's request that a cook be hired and, as of March 2000, the Martineau CCC stopped buying food and had to use a caterer.

[18]   Following the February 12 incident and considering that Ms. Goyette had indicated that other employees took their meals with the residents, Mr. Lussier sent a memorandum on February 21, 2000, (Exhibit F-2) forbidding the practice.

[19]   Mr. Gilles Thibault, District Director, confirmed that, in December 2000, in the presence of Mr. Lussier, he told the Martineau CCC employees that Correctional Service Canada could not pay for the meals of employees who ate with the residents. He agreed that it was a good idea to have the CCC employees socialize with the inmates, but the employees had to provide their own meals.

Arguments

[20]   The grievor indicated that, at the time of the incidents, there were many changes at the Martineau CCC and there may have been some confusion. She thought that the words of the Director when he authorized the preparation of meals at the Martineau CCC implied that employees could on occasion eat a meal prepared by the residents (inmates).

[21]   For his part, the employer maintained that the grievor was fully aware in December 1999 that the Martineau CCC did not pay for staff meals.

Reasons for Decision

[22]   I agree with the employer's position regarding the purchase of meals from a caterer and the directives transmitted by Messrs. Lussier and Thibault in December 1999. The message was clear considering the situation that prevailed at that time.

[23]   Subsequently, in January and February 2000, meals were prepared at the Martineau CCC. Considering the evidence before me, I am satisfied that there was some confusion at the time about whether an employee could take his meals with the residents and from food prepared for them.

[24]   Moreover, Ms. Goyette's testimony about the fact that other employees ate with the residents at the time is totally credible. Having been apprised of these facts on February 12, 2000, the Director took the trouble to issue a directive on February 21, 2000, (Exhibit F-2) to clarify the situation.

[25]   The directive of February 21, 2000, is couched in these terms: [Translation] "[…] It appears that recently there has been some ambiguity regarding the eating of meals with the clients [...]."

[26]   The fact that Ms. Goyette ate a meal prepared by the residents of the Martineau CCC cannot be considered as insubordination. It was in good faith that Ms. Goyette -- along with her co-workers -- occasionally ate a meal cooked by the residents. These actions arose from the ambiguity surrounding the fact that, as of January 2000, meals were prepared at the Martineau CCC.

[27]   I allow Ms. Goyette's grievance and order the employer to reimburse her for the financial penalty she suffered and to remove from her file all reference to any disciplinary action relating to the February 17, 2000 event.

Jean-Pierre Tessier,
Board Member

OTTAWA, July 19, 2002

PSSRB translation