FPSLREB Decisions

Indefinite suspension - Termination (disciplinary) - Abuse of authority - Misrepresentation of academic qualification - Unauthorized use of computer and electronic mail system - Prior discipline - Grievor's privacy - Scope of investigation - Potential for rehabilitation - the grievor was a human resources officer - he had had an affair with a woman (ex-partner) and a child was born from their relationship - she had filed a paternity suit against the grievor - in relation to the paternity suit, the grievor had filed documents in court falsely reporting a lower income, which resulted in the employer suspending him for five days - the grievor hired his ex-partner - the employer's policy prohibited human resources officers from hiring people to whom they are related - the grievor asked his ex-partner not to reveal their past relationship to the employer - eventually, she informed the employer - the employer suspended the grievor pending investigation on potential abuse of authority, based on allegations that he had intimidated and harassed his ex-partner during her employment - during the investigation, the employer discovered that the grievor had applied for jobs in four federal departments and that, on these occasions, he had submitted a résumé falsely stating that he held a bachelor's degree - during the investigation, the employer also discovered that the grievor had used extensively the electronic mail system and the internet for personal purposes and that his messages contained some sexual language - the employer terminated the grievor's employment, retroactive to the date of his suspension - the grievor grieved both his suspension and his termination - the employer argued that the grievor had been deceitful and that he had not recognized the inappropriateness of his conduct - it added that the grievor's position required trust and that the employer could no longer trust him - the grievor questioned the validity of the employer's investigation - he added that he had potential for rehabilitation - he argued that there was no evidence that he had given preferential treatment to his ex-partner when he hired her - he added that, out of the 394 electronic mail messages investigated by the employer, only one contained sexual language - on the issue of falsely representing that he held a bachelor's degree, the grievor responded that he got the equivalent experience - the grievor argued that the employer had no authority to discipline him and that, in any event, it had not established misconduct on his part - the adjudicator relied on the Privacy Commissioner's decision that the employer's investigation had not infringed on the grievor's privacy - she found that the employer was justified in broadening the scope of its investigation after having found the grievor's misleading résumé - she added that any irregularities in the way the employer conducted its investigation were remedied by the adjudication process - she found that the evidence did not support the employer's allegation that the grievor had used improper hiring practices - she found, however, that, although his ex-partner was qualified for the job for which she was hired, her hiring by the grievor was in breach of the employer's policy, as they were continuing to have some form of personal relationship - she also found that the employer had not established that the grievor's extensive use of personal electronic mail messages was in excess of that of other employees - she found that the employer was justified in imposing discipline for the grievor's use of sexual content in electronic mail messages and over the internet while at work - she found that the grievor's drafting a false résumé with the clear intent to secure higher employment justified discipline - the adjudicator found that, in the circumstances of this case, termination was too harsh a penalty - she further found that reinstatement was not appropriate in this case - she awarded the grievor six months' compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Grievances allowed, in part. Case cited: Tipple v. Canada (Treasury Board) (September 26, 1985), A-66-85 (F.C.A.).