FPSLREB Decisions

Complaint before the Board

1 The complainant, Simbo Conteh, is a correctional officer, classified CX-01, at Kent Institution. On July 4, 2012, he filed a complaint with the Public Service Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Canada Labour Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, “the Code”), alleging that the employer had taken action against him in contravention of section 147.

2 Section 147 of the Code provides as follows:

147. No employer shall dismiss, suspend, lay off or demote an employee, impose a financial or other penalty on an employee, or refuse to pay an employee remuneration in respect of any period that the employee would, but for the exercise of the employee’s rights under this Part, have worked, or take any disciplinary action against or threaten to take any such action against an employee because the employee

(a) has testified or is about to testify in a proceeding taken or an inquiry held under this Part;

(b) has provided information to a person engaged in the performance of duties under this Part regarding the conditions of work affecting the health or safety of the employee or of any other employee of the employer; or

(c) has acted in accordance with this Part or has sought the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Part.

3 This complaint relates to an instruction given by the Deputy Warden of Kent Institution to the complainant to file a written report or face disciplinary action after the complainant’s refusal to work under section 128 of the Code had been resolved.

4 On the hearing date, the parties consulted with each other and advised me that they had agreed on the facts and remedial action and asked that I make an order reflecting this agreement. Neither party called evidence.

Agreed facts and remedial action

5 The parties agreed on the facts and the remedial action set out below. I have edited the agreed facts only to provide for the correct identification of the respondent.

6 The complainant is a correctional officer (CX-01) at Kent Institution, a maximum-security penitentiary in Agassiz, British Columbia.

7 During the evening shift of May 28, 2012, Mr. Conteh refused to work pursuant to section 128 of the Code.

8 Pursuant to section 128(6) of the Code, Mr. Conteh verbally notified the correctional manager at the K-6 post, the officer-in-charge, of his reason to refuse to work.

9 The work refusal was resolved under section 128(8) Code on May 29, 2012, when management at Kent Institution agreed to conduct a search of POD-1. This resolution was satisfactory to the complainant.

10 The complainant was summoned to the office of the Assistant Warden, Management Services (AWMS), where the Deputy Warden gave a direct order to the complainant that he had to provide the reasons for his work refusal in writing or he could be disciplined.

11 The parties agreed that there is no requirement under the Code to put the reasons for a refusal to work in writing.

12 As remedial action, the parties agree that there was a contravention of section 147 of the Code.

Reasons

13 As outlined earlier, the parties have advised me of the terms of their agreement that they wished me to incorporate into an order.

14 There are no public policy or labour relations reasons barring the making of an order in the circumstances of this case. In my view it is appropriate to make an order reflecting the the parties’ agreement.

15 For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

Order

16 I declare that the actions of ordering the complainant to file a written report or face discipline, following an oral report of his reasons to refuse to work on May 28, 2012, and a resolution of that refusal to his satisfaction, contravened section 147 of the Code.

March 20, 2014.

Paul Love,
a panel of the Public Service
Labour Relations Board