FPSLREB Decisions

File: 166-2-27737 Public Service Staff Before the Public Service Relations Act Staff Relations Board BETWEEN MARC BEAULNE Grievor and TREASURY BOARD (Transport Canada)

Employer Before: Jean Charles Cloutier, Board Member For the Grievor: Jean Ouellette, Public Service Alliance of Canada For the Employer: Michel LeFrançois, Counsel Heard at Ottawa, Ontario August 25, 26 and 27, 1997.

Decision Page 1 DECISION On October 29, 1996, Marc Beaulne, an employee of Transport Canada, presented a grievance with respect to his discharge.

The statement of grievance reads as follows: Grieving wrongful dismissal [sic] from Transport Canada. The letter of discharge, dated October 29, 1996, reads as follows: [Translation] Following an investigation of irregularities in the expenses for which you were reimbursed under the Treasury Board Relocation Directive, I have carefully considered all of the existing information and I have reached the following conclusions.

The evidence shows that you wrongly received temporary dual residence assistance during your short- term relocation and then during your permanent relocation to Ottawa, Ontario. During a period of 27 months, from July 1994 to September 1996, you submitted receipts indicating that you were paying $1,500 per month for rent and utilities. You therefore received $1,500 per month in temporary dual residence assistance. It has been shown that the receipts you submitted were false and did not reflect the actual amount you were spending each month for rent and utilities. If you had not submitted false receipts, your monthly reimbursements would have been much lower than the $1,500 you received.

It is my view that your actions seriously undermine employer- employee relations, particularly in light of the extremely high level of trust and integrity that is required of you as an airworthiness inspector. You have indicated that you believed that you were acting correctly and that you did not intend to act improperly. I cannot accept that explanation; I believe that your actions both during the 27-month period in which you wrongly received temporary dual residence assistance, as well as during the investigation, show a total lack of judgment. I have no choice but to conclude that you knew or should have known that your actions were clearly unacceptable and could result in serious consequences.

In view of the above, I believe that the relationship of trust that must exist between an employee and management has been irreparably compromised. Consequently, in accordance with the authority that I have been delegated by the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada and applying paragraph 11(2)(f) and subsection 11(4) of the Financial Administration

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 2 Act and section 50 of the Public Service Employment Regulations, I hereby terminate your employment with the Public Service for misconduct. This decision takes effect at the close of office hours today.

You have the right to grieve this decision if you so desire. The Compensation Operations Branch will contact you to settle the administrative formalities arising from this decision.

Yours truly, (Exhibit E-4) The corrective action requested is: Re-instatement at the TI-05 indetermenent [sic] position. EVIDENCE Counsel for the employer filed 11 pieces of evidence (E-1 to E-11 inclusive). The representative for the employee filed 15 pieces of evidence (G-1 to G-15 inclusive). The employer's evidence can be summarized as follows.

Linda Wisking, a travel and relocation policy officer, met with Marc Beaulne in June 1994. He was being relocated from Timmins to Ottawa and the practice was for employees to be given information about the Relocation Directive (Exhibit E-7). These information sessions normally took about an hour but it only took about half an hour with Mr. Beaulne. Ms. Wisking informed Mr. Beaulne that he was entitled to $1,500 per month for his rent in the National Capital Region, including hydro, telephone and cable. Ms. Wisking did not remember providing the employee with a copy of the policy but rather explaining his rights to him. She acknowledged that she initialled the documents (travel authorization and advance) and she admitted seeing the 27 receipts in the amount of $1,500 each signed by R. Nadon. During cross-examination, Ms. Wisking mentioned that the $1,500 was a maximum and that the amount was not specified in the Relocation Policy because it varies depending on the average amount paid for rent in the region concerned. The employer's witness also mentioned in her memorandum of November 13, 1996 (Exhibit G-12) that when the employer gives a set monthly amount, it does not require receipts for expenses incurred. A meeting also

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 3 took place in April 1996 between Ms. Wisking and Marc and Michèle Beaulne concerning his permanent relocation to Ottawa because he had won a permanent position in Ottawa. The purpose of that meeting was to explain his entitlements under the Relocation Policy (permanent), as well as the new policy (draft) on house sales. Ms. Wisking testified that Mr. Beaulne understood this policy very well and indeed, even better than she at the time.

The employer's second witness, Josée Derickx, a Transport Canada staff relations officer, testified that she had received a telephone call on September 11, 1996 from P. Desjardins, a security officer, informing her of irregularities in Mr. Beaulne's travel expenses. On October 8, 1996, a meeting was held between Mr. Beaulne, Larry Teslyk, the union representative, Don Sherritt, Acting Director, and Josée Derickx, during which Mr. Beaulne was informed of irregularities in his relocation records.

Mr. Beaulne admitted at that meeting that his rent was $783 per month including utilities (hydro, telephone, cable) and that the 27 receipts for $1,500 were false. Mr. Beaulne also offered to repay the overpayment, approximately $19,000. Josée Derickx testified that another meeting was held on October 29, 1996, at which the same individuals were presents, along with D. Spruston, the Director General, and Georges Dufour, Mr. Beaulne's counsel. D. Spruston told Mr. Beaulne that he was discharging him (Exhibit E-4) effective that day and that the case had been turned over to the R.C.M.P. The grievor stated at the meeting that he had understood that he was entitled to $1,500 per month and that he had to submit a receipt for that amount.

During cross-examination, Josée Derickx stated that Mr. Beaulne had admitted at that meeting:

(a) that the receipts were false; (b) that he did not think he had done anything illegal but if he had made a mistake, he was prepared to repay the full amount.

Don Sherritt, the Acting Director, was the employer's last witness and he confirmed what Josée Derickx had said concerning the facts that came out at the meetings. Mr. Sherritt also testified that Mr. Beaulne seemed very upset and confused during the meetings which surprised him because he was his immediate supervisor Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 4 and he considered him one of his top five inspectors. The witness referred to several performance evaluations (Exhibit G-1), all of which contained a “fully satisfactory” rating. He also submitted the employee's job description (Exhibit E-3) which describes the grievor's very important responsibilities with respect to his dealings with air carriers and he concluded that Mr. Beaulne had shown poor judgment in appropriating funds to which he was not entitled. Under cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not know where Mr. Beaulne lived, that is, he did not know the address of his residence.

The evidence presented by the grievor's representative can be summarized as follows.

Nathalie Nadon met Marc Beaulne and his family in the summer of 1994 at which time he announced that he was coming to work in Ottawa on a special project and that the employer was giving him $1,500 per month for his expenses. The purpose of Mr. Beaulne's visit to the Nadon family was to meet Rolland Nadon to ask him for help in finding accommodation. During cross-examination, Nathalie Nadon stated that Marc Beaulne told her that he would be receiving $1,500 per month.

The next witness was Rolland Nadon, a friend of the Beaulne family living at 104 Lorrain Blvd in Gatineau. During the meeting between Mr. Nadon and Mr. Beaulne on July 1, 1994, Mr. Beaulne told him about his transfer to Ottawa for a period of between 9 months and a year, that he was very proud of this promotion, and that the employer was giving him $1,500 per month to offset expenses resulting from the transfer. It was then that Mr. Nadon suggested to Mr. Beaulne that he would build accommodation for him on his property at 104 Lorrain Blvd so that Mr. Beaulne's family could live there. He assured Mr. Beaulne that everything would be ready in the coming months. Mr. Nadon then agreed to find him temporary accommodation until construction was completed. Mr. Nadon found an apartment with a Mr. Desjardins at 407 Plouffe Street in Gatineau at a cost of $640 per month, with no lease. Mr. Nadon agreed to pay the $640 rent each month to Mr. Desjardins for the apartment at 407 Plouffe Street where Mr. Beaulne and his family were living and to sign 27 monthly receipts in the amount of $1,500 so that Mr. Beaulne could collect that amount from the employer each month. Under cross-examination, Mr. Nadon testified that he had understood that Mr. Beaulne had been allocated $1,500 per month and

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 5 that he had to submit a receipt. Mr. Nadon admitted that he had never collected more than $640 per month, that he had signed false receipts because he had not received the $1,500 and that he had not paid the hydro, telephone or cable. The plan to build accommodation at his residence (104 Lorrain Blvd) did not materialize and, in the spring of 1995, he informed Mr. Beaulne accordingly. Mr. Nadon learned that Mr. Beaulne had signed a lease (Exhibit E-11) with Mr. Desjardins only until the summer of 1995. Mr. Nadon stated that he did not see any problem with signing the 27 (false) receipts and paying the $640 per month for Mr. Beaulne to Mr. Desjardins during the 27-month period.

Richard Laurence "Larry" Teslyk, a union representative, attended the two meetings (October 8 and 29, 1996). He stated that he had understood from Mr. Beaulne that he had been entitled to claim $1,500 per month if he submitted a receipt for that amount. He testified that, on several occasions during the two meetings, Mr. Beaulne admitted that he had misunderstood and that, if that was the case, he was prepared to reimburse the amounts owed. He commented that Mr. Beaulne was very cooperative during the two meetings and did not appear to want to hide anything.

It was during cross-examination by counsel for the employer that the witness realized the mistake that Mr. Beaulne had made, that is, that he had been entitled to a maximum of $1,500 and that expenses would be reimbursed if receipts were submitted. This witness did not think that Marc Beaulne was guilty because he had simply made a human mistake.

The defence's next witness was the employee's spouse, Michelle Beaulne. Ms. Beaulne confirmed that they had to take temporary accommodation while waiting for the construction promised by Mr. Nadon to be completed. She confirmed that they had lived at 407 Plouffe Street for 27 months and that the rent was paid to Mr. Desjardins by Mr. Nadon. She confirmed that her spouse had told her that they were entitled to $1,500 per month during the transition period.

During cross-examination by the employer, Ms. Beaulne stated that her husband had told her that Linda (Wisking) had told him to provide one receipt covering everything. She also admitted that she had never seen the 27 receipts for $1,500 prepared by her husband and signed by Mr. Nadon.

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 6 The last witness called by J. Ouellette was Marc Beaulne who testified that he had been employed by Transport Canada since 1987 as an airworthiness inspector at the TI-05 level. He referred to his evaluations (Exhibit G-1) which were all fully satisfactory, and he confirmed that this incident was the only time he had received a disciplinary measure. He confirmed that in June 1994 his superiors had asked him to be part of a special project in Ottawa for a period of 6 to 9 months. Before starting his assignment (July 4, 1994), that is, during the month of June 1994, he met with Linda Wisking who allegedly told him that he would receive $1,500 per month on which to live while here (Ottawa) and that anything over and above that amount he would have to cover himself. Mr. Beaulne testified that he did not receive a copy of the directive. Mr. Beaulne met with Mr. Nadon. The latter offered to build him accommodation next to his own family home and added that, during the period of construction, he (Mr. Nadon) would find him temporary accommodation. Mr. Beaulne made a verbal agreement with Mr. Nadon by which Mr. Nadon would pay the rent at 407 Plouffe Street, Apt. 2, Gatineau to Mr. Desjardins and Mr. Beaulne would prepare receipts for $1,500 per month which Mr. Nadon would sign. All of the documents relating to the claims for reimbursement during the period from July 1994 to October 1996 (27 months) bear the address of 104 Lorrain Blvd, although Mr. Beaulne admitted that he had never lived at that address. He stated that he had signed a lease with Mr. Desjardins (Exhibit E-11) for the apartment in which he lived (407 Plouffe Street) but that in spite of that, Mr. Nadon continued to pay the rent ($640) and to sign the $1,500 receipts each month. Mr. Beaulne acknowledged that it was at the meeting on October 8, 1996 that he realized the mistake he had made in thinking that the $1,500 was an allocated amount and not a maximum. He offered to reimburse everything if he had made a mistake. Mr. Beaulne admitted his extremely poor judgment in this matter and stated that his negligence had led him to make a serious mistake and that he had learned a lesson. The total amount was reimbursed from his pension fund. Moreover, a note had been added to his airport security file which was making it difficult for him to find work. He stated that he had not hidden anything and believed that he could return to work because this matter would not affect his work performance.

During cross-examination by Michel LeFrançois, Mr. Beaulne testified that he had read and that he understood the policies relating to his work very well, but that he had not even requested a copy of the Relocation Policy. He stated that he had relied Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 7 on L. Wisking and had never informed the Department (during the 27 months) of his change of address even though he filled out the documents himself. Mr. Beaulne admitted that he was claiming double what it cost him per month.

ARGUMENTS For the employer The employer's argument can be summarized as follows. The evidence shows that Mr. Beaulne committed in fraud by preparing 27 false receipts that he had Mr. Nadon sign, receipts reporting amounts that were double the amount actually spent. Moreover, Linda Wisking stated that she had told the employee that he was entitled to a maximum of $1,500 and that he had to provide receipts to justify the advance he was receiving. For a period of 27 months, he submitted receipts for $1,500 per month for an address (104 Lorrain Blvd) at which he never lived. These documents all bore Mr. Beaulne's signature and the employer had no way of knowing of any irregularities at that time. Counsel stressed the fact that Mr. Beaulne had submitted fraudulent receipts in connection with incorrect claims which did not reflect his true address. With Mr. Nadon's help, he appropriated close to $20,000 to which he was not entitled. Mr. Beaulne had everything to gain by knowingly misrepresenting his address during the 27 months in order to receive amounts greater than those to which he was entitled. Mr. Beaulne had admitted that he had travelled as part of his duties and to knowing very well that, when receipts are required, it is because the employee is reimbursed the amount shown on the receipts and that when a lump sum is allocated, there is no need for receipts. Counsel for the employer cited the following decisions in support of his argument: John King and the Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-25956); Richard Allen Boyle and the Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-24108); Nancy Cole and the Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-25466); and Graham L. Dixon v. the Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-555).

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 8 For the grievor The argument presented by the grievor's representative can be summarized as follows.

First, the employer has the burden of proof and in terms of the letter of termination dated October 29, 1996 (Exhibit E-4, para. 2) in which the issue is whether the employee received temporary dual residence assistance, this accusation was never proven. In addition, the same letter raises doubt as to what Mr. Beaulne knew or should have known. As soon as Mr. Beaulne was informed of the problem, he admitted his error in judgment and offered on the spot to repay the amounts, which he has done. This error or misconduct does not justify his termination. Mr. Beaulne made a mistake but he is not a dishonest person. He testified openly and he cooperated with the Department. He also regrets his mistake. D. Sherritt, Acting Director, stated that Mr. Beaulne was one of his top five inspectors; therefore, he cannot be criticized for his work performance. Article M-37(9) of the Master Agreement between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance clearly specifies that the Relocation Policy is an integral part of the collective agreement. In addition, section 1.2.2 of the Relocation Directive (Exhibit E-7) stipulates:

1.2.2 Once a relocation has been authorized: (a) the employer shall immediately provide the relocating employee with a copy of this chapter and the name and telephone number of the departmental contact who will assist the employee in interpreting this directive;

Mr. Beaulne never received a copy of the policy and had only one half-hour meeting, although Linda Wisking herself told us that this type of interview normally takes an hour.

Immediately after the interview with Linda Wisking, Mr. Beaulne told his wife and friends that he was entitled to $1,500 per month, which clearly shows what he understood.

The Department never asked any questions or did any checking during the 27 months, which shows the laxness of the organization since it paid on the basis of the employee's signature.

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 9 In his letter of October 29, 1996, the Director General, D. Spruston (Exhibit E-5), informed Mr. Beaulne that there were two options for repaying the amount owing, either in cash or the Department would recover it upon his departure. It is worth noting that Mr. Beaulne chose the second option and that the $17,080.97 was repaid very quickly by mid-November 1996. The termination appears to be too harsh a penalty since, in the staff relations field, it amounts to capital punishment. Mr. Beaulne committed a serious offence (error in judgment) but it does not justify his termination.

The Alliance's representative referred me to the following decisions: Daniel Arthur Thomas v. The Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-14606); J.-G.-A. Gravel v. The Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-21603); Arthur J. Kielbowicz v. The Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-23717); Nancy Cole v. The Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-25466); Hugh McGoldrik v. The Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-25796); Satwinder Samra v. The Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-26543); Stephen Melcher v. The Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-27604); John (Jack) W. Sample v. The Treasury Board (Board File 166-2-27610).

DECISION This grievance relates to a discharge the effective date of which was October 29, 1996. The letter of discharge (Exhibit E-4) specifies that Marc Beaulne "received . . . assistance. . ." and ". . . that the receipts you submitted were false and did not reflect the actual amount you were spending each month for rent and utilities . . .". The grievor's representative admitted that some negligence had been proven which justified the imposition of disciplinary action.

However, he argued that the grievor was not guilty of as serious an error as that alleged and that the harshest penalty was not justified.

In order to decide this matter, it is necessary to know the facts and draw the appropriate conclusions from them. The fundamental question is as follows: did the grievor receive funds from the employer knowing that the actions he was taking was fraudulent?

Public Service Staff Relations Board

Decision Page 10 Mr. Beaulne was already familiar with the policies and procedures relating to travel and relocation in the Public Service. He cannot therefore claim ignorance of certain policies. He knew full well that when receipts are required, they must reflect the exact amount of expenses incurred. He was in a position to know that when an employee is given a set amount, he does not have to submit receipts. Mr. Beaulne not only submitted receipts while telling anyone who would listen that he had been allocated a set amount of $1,500 per month, but he also prepared 27 false receipts that he had Mr. Nadon sign. It is inconceivable that an employee of Mr. Beaulne's calibre would also agree to having a third party (Mr. Nadon) pay his rent for him, that is $640 per month, and to do so for 27 months. Mr. Beaulne himself admitted that he was guilty of gross negligence. I believe that the Department was completely justified in considering this a serious matter. Now that the evidence has been submitted and testimony obtained under oath, I must conclude that Marc Beaulne is guilty of intentional gross negligence.

In this case, the grievor's negligence is of a serious nature. The amount at issue is quite substantial and has been recovered by the Crown, but the principle is extremely important. An employee must not sign documents involving the allocation of public funds without giving them considerable care and attention.

An employee found guilty of gross negligence towards his employer (the Treasury Board) must expect to receive very harsh punishment.

At the time of the termination of his employment on October 29, 1996, Mr. Beaulne was an airworthiness inspector (TI-05). No one complained about the quality of his work; on the contrary, his superiors described his work as remarkable. No disciplinary action had been entered on his record since he joined Transport Canada in 1987. The Relocation Directive, which is an integral part of the collective agreement, is very explicit, stipulating: (a) the employer shall immediately provide the relocating employee with a copy of this chapter . . .., According to Linda Wisking, Mr. Beaulne did not receive that copy.