FPSLREB Decisions

Suspension (10 days) - Public criticism of employer - Freedom of expression - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) - Obligation to raise the matter internally - Mitigation - the grievor was a drug evaluator with Health Canada - the Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada (CVO) decided to suspend the importation of certain beef products from Brazil due to an alleged potential health risk relating to mad cow disease - the Brazilian government objected to this decision - in an attempt to resolve the matter, it was decided that a multi-disciplinary team would go to Brazil, with representatives from Canada, the United States and Mexico, to conduct a site assessment - the grievor was contacted at home by a newspaper reporter regarding her views about the recent Canadian ban on Brazilian beef imports - she stated that there was no difference between Brazilian beef and Canadian beef because both countries had imported beef cattle from Europe where mad cow disease existed - she indicated that in her opinion the ban on the importation of Brazilian beef products was in reality a political decision on the part of the Canadian government relating to an ongoing trade dispute with Brazil - this was reported in the newspaper and caused considerable embarrassment to the Canadian government and inconvenience to the CVO - as a result, the employer imposed a 10-day suspension upon the grievor for publicly criticizing her employer - the grievor maintained that her right to make public her views on this matter was protected by the Charter and, in particular, by freedom of expression - the adjudicator indicated that there are situations where the freedom of expression of a public servant prevails over the duty of loyalty to the employer - these arise where the Government is engaged in illegal acts or if its policies jeopardize the life, health or safety of the public and where the criticism does not have an adverse effect on a public servant's ability to perform effectively his or her duties or on the perception of that ability - the adjudicator concluded that the grievor's actions did not fall within these exceptions - furthermore, according to the adjudicator, where a matter is of legitimate public debate, the duty of loyalty cannot be absolute to the extent of preventing public disclosure by a government official - however, the first avenue for a public servant to follow when raising a matter critical of Government policy is to raise it internally - this the grievor did not do - in addition, as a scientist with Health Canada, the grievor's criticism carried significant weight with the members of the public - the adjudicator concluded that the employer's imposition upon the grievor of some disciplinary penalty was warranted - however, the adjudicator found that, since the grievor had not sought out the media attention, the imposition of a 10-day suspension without pay was too severe a penalty under the circumstances and he substituted a 5-day suspension therefor. Grievance allowed in part. Cases cited: Haydon v. Canada, [2001] 2 F.C. 82; Fraser v. P.S.S.R.B., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455. _______________________