FPSLREB Decisions

File: 166-2-26840 Public Service Staff Before the Public Service Relations Act Staff Relations Board BETWEEN JOCELIN R. LACHANCE Grievor and TREASURY BOARD (Agriculture Canada)

Employer Before: Marguerite-Marie Galipeau, Board Member For the Grievor: Pierre Labbé For the Employer: Guy Blouin, Counsel Heard at Quebec City, Quebec, February 20, 1996.

Decision Page 1 DECISION This decision was rendered following the hearing of a grievance referred to adjudication by Jocelin Lachance, a meat inspector (PI-3) with Agriculture Canada. The grievance of Mr. Lachance concerns a three-day suspension (Exhibit E-2) imposed on him on April 5, 1995. In the letter informing him of his suspension (Exhibit E-2), the employer criticized Mr. Lachance for having harassed a co-worker, Raymond Lacroix, (translation) "by using offensive language towards him and threatening him physically, on December 6, 1994" . It also criticized him for having (translation) "used threatening language towards Mr. Lacroix in connection, specifically, with his duties as a safety representative" .

Evidence The exclusion of witnesses was allowed. The evidence may be summarized as follows:

Jocelin Lachance and his co-worker, Raymond Lacroix, are meat inspectors at the plant of the Olymel company in Vallée-Jonction. This company required the inspection services of the Department of Agriculture. Although Mr. Lachance and Mr. Lacroix are employees of the department of Agriculture, their workplace is the Olymel plant. Mr. Lachance and Mr. Lacroix work together with four other inspectors around an inspection table. Olymel employees place the animal viscera in pans on the inspection table. One of the inspectors inspects the carcasses. The others examine the viscera and bring any anomaly to the attention of the veterinarians.

Jocelin Lachance and Raymond Lacroix have known each other about 20 years. Mr. Lachance has been a union representative for six or seven years. Mr. Lacroix has been a health and safety representative since 1989. In addition, at the request of his union, he has been chairman, since 1991, of the health and safety committee for the Quebec region. It is his fellow inspectors who have elected him three times as health and safety representative. Moreover, it is his union which appointed him chairman of the health and safety committee.

According to Raymond Lacroix, his relationship with Jocelin Lachance deteriorated when he was elected health and safety representative in 1989.

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 2 According to him, Jocelin Lachance was disappointed that his friend, André Grégoire, was not elected representative instead of Raymond Lacroix. Also, according to Mr. Lacroix, Mr. Lachance did not approve of the way in which Mr. Lacroix discharged his responsibilities as health and safety representative, and often told him so. Mr. Lacroix sees his role to be to make suggestions and recommendations to his employer, whereas Mr. Lachance thinks that Mr. Lacroix should be more demanding of their employer. According to Mr. Lacroix, Mr. Lachance has regularly used vulgar words and language with him. Mr. Lachance has also thrown pieces of meat at him. In the past, he has been hit in the back of the head and on his glasses by pieces of meat. When he asked Mr. Lachance to stop, Mr. Lachance said, "Did you see me?". Between September and November 1994, the situation between the two became unbearable. They had five or seven altercations, related, among other things, to health and safety representation.

On cross-examination, Raymond Lacroix admitted that once, as a joke, he and a co-worker put a piece of kidney in one employee's boots. He denied having used vulgar language such as Jocelin Lachance has used towards him.

Raymond Lacroix described the incident of December 6, 1994, as follows: At the dinner hour, Raymond Lacroix went to the locker room. His locker is next to that of Jocelin Lachance. In reaching for his shirt and pants, he bumped the door of Mr. Lachance's locker, against which Mr. Lachance's boots were resting. An exchange took place during which Mr. Lachance insulted Mr. Lacroix and threatened to punch him in the face.

Raymond Lacroix told Jocelin Lachance to stay calm or he would have to pay for his actions. At this moment, Gilles Roy entered the locker room. Mr. Lacroix left the locker room with Gilles Roy.

Following is a summary of the testimony of other inspectors. Jaclin Carrier testified that before December 6, 1994, during their discussions of health and safety issues, Jocelin Lachance had been critical of Raymond Lacroix. Bits of meat were thrown at Mr. Lacroix more often than at the other inspectors. According to Jaclin Carrier, there was a conflict between Mr. Lacroix on the one hand, and Mr. Lachance, Pierre Labbé and André Grégoire on the other. Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 3 On a number of occasions, Jaclin Carrier saw Jocelin Lachance throw bits of meat at Raymond Lacroix. According to Jaclin Carrier, Mr. Lacroix does not make it a habit to throw meat at his co-workers and use vulgar language.

On December 6, 1994, Jaclin Carrier heard voices in the locker room. He heard Jocelin Lachance say, "Watch out, I already told you to be careful with my boots". A little later, he heard Mr. Lachance say to Raymond Lacroix, "I'm going to break your neck, I'll damn well punch you in the face". Then he heard Mr. Lacroix say, "Come on, Jocelin, we're adults". Then Mr. Lachance, "You class A a------", and finally Mr. Lacroix, "You have to learn to live in society".

Inspector Gilles Roy testified that in the past, he has often seen Jocelin Lachance throw meat at Raymond Lacroix. Mr. Lacroix did nothing. Then, he went up to Mr. Lachance and said, "Are you done throwing meat at me?", to which Mr. Lachance replied, "Did you see me?". According to Gilles Roy, Mr. Lacroix is not a meat "thrower." Furthermore, Gilles Roy saw Mr. Lachance throw meat at Mr. Lacroix more than once. He also heard Mr. Lachance at the inspection table saying to Mr. Lacroix, "I'll get you, you a---". André Grégoire was near Mr. Lachance when he said the words.

As for the incident of December 6, 1994, all he heard was the end of the incident. Mr. Lacroix was sitting on a bench, saying to Jocelin Lachance, "You'll pay for your actions". At no time, according to Gilles Roy, did Raymond Lacroix move towards Mr. Lachance or approach him in an aggressive manner. He simply got up from the bench and followed Gilles Roy.

According to another inspector, Gilles Pommerleau, Jocelin Lachance and Raymond Lacroix had differences of opinion. Mr. Lachance would have preferred that Mr. Lacroix not be the health and safety representative. He did not do as Mr. Lachance would have liked. They had words. Mr. Lachance had called Mr. Lacroix "a brown- noser". Seven or eight years ago, Gilles Pommerleau saw Mr. Lachance grab inspector Yves Turgeon by the collar. He had to separate them.

Following is Jocelin Lachance's version of the incident of December 6, 1994. He went into the locker room. His coat was on the locker, his boots were opposite his locker. Raymond Lacroix pushed the door into the boots. Mr. Lachance Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 4 moved the door back. He went to wash his hands in another room. On returning, he saw Mr. Lacroix pushing hard against the door, crushing the boots (according to Mr. Lachance, his boots show the marks). An exchange followed during which Mr. Lachance reminded Mr. Lacroix that he had asked him before to be careful with his boots. Mr. Lacroix told him to go and change elsewhere if he was not happy. They raised their voices. Mr. Lachance insulted Mr. Lacroix. He hurled abuse at him. He used unflattering epithets. Finally, he blamed him for having approved, as health and safety representative, the size of the locker room.

According to Jocelin Lachance, when he had finished speaking, Raymond Lacroix got up and moved towards him in an aggressive manner (he was already close to Mr. Lachance, as the room is cramped) and said to him, "I'll show you how to live in society and you won't forget it", to which Mr. Lachance replied, "If you don't stop, I'll punch you in the face". He then left the locker room. According to Mr. Lachance, Pierre Labbé and André Grégoire witnessed the whole incident. Moreover, Mr. Lachance acknowledged that he had argued in the past with Mr. Lacroix about differences of opinion over union matters. Mr. Lachance also stated that when he took up his duties as union representative, Mr. Lacroix said to him, "So, you sucked up to Goupil".

The testimony of the inspector André Grégoire may be summarized as follows: He heard Jocelin Lachance say to Raymond Lacroix, "You knocked my boots again" and "You creep". Mr. Lacroix got up from the bench where he had been sitting and moved towards Mr. Lachance, who said to him, "Don't come near me or I'll punch you in the face". André Grégoire said he is responsible for union matters and that in the past there had been differences of opinion between himself, Mr. Lachance and Mr. Lacroix.

The inspectors Fernand Duchêne and Vital Labonté testified that there were differences of opinion between Jocelin Lachance and Raymond Lacroix. According to Mr. Labonté, there had always been a little hostility between them. Ill feelings had set in. According to Mr. Labonté, the workers use colourful language.

The director general of the Food Production and Inspection Branch, Gaston Roy, testified that he had decided to impose a three-day suspension on Jocelin Lachance

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 5 after reading the report of the inquiry which concluded that there had been harassment.

Gaston Roy concluded that Jocelin Lachance was guilty of intimidation, of using offensive language and physical threats and of throwing meat, which could constitute a risk to the safety of employees. Although questionable language is sometimes used among employees, Mr. Roy was of the opinion that the employer could not tolerate the language Mr. Lachance used towards Raymond Lacroix.

ARGUMENTS Counsel for the employer pointed out the existence of the policy respecting harassment in the workplace (Exhibit E-1). Harassment is defined as "any improper behaviour by a person employed in the Public Service that is directed at, and is offensive to, any employee of the Public Service and which that person knew or ought reasonably to have known would be unwelcome. It comprises objectionable conduct, comment or display made on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles, or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment to an employee". He stated that deterrence and exemplariness were the considerations underlying the employer's decision. The words used, the physical threats warranted a three-day suspension. No case law was cited.

The grievor's representative was of the opinion that on December 6, 1994, Mr. Lacroix had treated the personal effects of Jocelin Lachance in an "improper" manner and that the situation had deteriorated thereafter. When Raymond Lacroix stood up, it suggested aggression and Mr. Lachance felt threatened. An ordinary incident took on greater proportions.

As for the meat throwing, Jocelin Lachance is not the only one who does this. It is certainly dangerous and reprehensible and should be condemned for ethical and safety reasons.

The three-day suspension is all the more serious as it is noted in the employee's file. In a period of layoffs, this can prove detrimental. Finally, the inquiry procedure left its mark on a number of people. Sensitivity must be shown to the impact on this small group of inspectors (about 15) required to work together. No case law was cited. Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 6 AWARD In this case, the employer has the burden of proof, and I think it has discharged its burden.

The evidence shows that on December 6, 1994, Jocelin Lachance used offensive language towards Raymond Lacroix and threatened him physically. In fact, Mr. Lachance admitted this in relating his version of the incident. He explained it by saying that Mr. Lacroix crushed his boots and approached him in an aggressive manner towards the end of the altercation.

I am not convinced that Raymond Lacroix approached Jocelin Lachance in a threatening way. First of all, Gilles Roy, who saw this part of the incident, states otherwise. He testified that Mr. Lacroix did not approach Mr. Lachance aggressively. Even André Grégoire, who testified for Mr. Lachance, gave a milder account, saying simply that Mr. Lacroix "came forward," without qualifying the action. Moreover, the other witness, Pierre Labbé, did not testify, having elected to represent Mr. Lachance. In addition, evidence concerning the previous conduct of the two protagonists leads me to believe that Mr. Lachance is the more aggressive of the two. In fact, according to the testimony, on a number of occasions in the past he threw pieces of meat at Mr. Lacroix without any retaliation from the latter. Given his previous conduct, I am not inclined to give much weight to his explanations of the threat of December 6, 1994.

While allowing that Raymond Lacroix showed a lack of consideration towards Jocelin Lachance by pushing the door against his boots (there is no evidence that he did this deliberately), this does not excuse the offensive language and threats.

The employer was also critical of Jocelin Lachance for having "used threatening language towards Raymond Lacroix in connection, specifically, with his duties as a safety representative". There is scanty evidence of this third reproach. However, as the use of "offensive language and threats" on December 6, 1994, has been shown, I consider that this incident of December 6, 1994, in and of itself constitutes harassment within the meaning of the policy respecting harassment in the workplace (Exhibit E-1) and merits the disciplinary measure imposed on Mr. Lachance.

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 7 There is no doubt that relations between Raymond Lacroix and Jocelin Lachance are tense. All the testimony convinces me of this. In this context, the incident of December 6, 1994, seems to me to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The contentious issues which pit one against the other in their respective roles as health and safety representative and union representative do not justify the offensive language and threats of Jocelin Lachance. In short, I do not find the disciplinary measure unreasonable, and accordingly, I refrain from intervening.

For all of the above reasons, the grievance is dismissed.

Marguerite-Marie Galipeau, Board Member

OTTAWA, March 29, 1996. Certified true translation

Serge Lareau

Public Service Staff Relations Board