FPSLREB Decisions

Jurisdiction - Subsection 91(1) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) - Termination (disciplinary) - Suspensions (25 and 30 days) - Negligent performance of duties - Violation of Oath of Office and Secrecy - Conflict of interest - Progressive discipline - Culminating incident - Parole Officer - Disability - Duty to accommodate - the employer imposed a 25-day suspension upon the grievor for his inadequate supervision of a high-risk parolee who was ultimately arrested for committing another violent crime while on parole and under the grievor's supervision - the grievor, who had lost one of the digits on one hand, claimed that he had trouble performing all the duties of his position as a result of his disability and the requirement to use a computer to prepare his reports - the adjudicator considered whether the raising of this human rights issue by the grievor deprived her of jurisdiction to hear this grievance, as there was another administrative procedure for redress under the Canadian Human Rights Act within the meaning of subsection 91(1) of the PSSRA - the adjudicator concluded that the human rights issue did not constitute the substance of the grievance and therefore did not deprive her of jurisdiction to hear it - in any case, the adjudicator found that the grievor's handicap did not substantially impair his ability to perform the functions of a parole officer - the grievor was an unsuccessful candidate for city councillor in a municipal by-election - the grievor launched a challenge in the courts against the results of the by-election - the employer imposed a 30-day suspension upon the grievor for using in his court challenge information which was available to him only by reason of his employment as a parole officer, contrary to his Oath of Office and Secrecy - finally, the employer terminated the grievor's employment for his repeatedly advocating in the media the granting of parole to an offender who was in prison for having committed a serious offence - as well, the grievor criticized the Parole Board for not having granted the offender parole - the employer alleged that this conflicted with the grievor's duties as a parole officer - the grievor claimed that he was entitled to do this, as he was not acting in his capacity as a parole officer but rather as a private citizen when he did so - the adjudicator concluded that the grievor had committed the acts of misconduct alleged against him and that they demonstrated poor judgment on his part - the penalties imposed by the employer were reasonable under the circumstances. Grievances denied. Cases cited:Canada (Attorney General) v. Boutilier, [1999] 1 F.C. 459 (T.D.); Chopra v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1995] 3 F.C. 445 (T.D.); Mohammed v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1998), 148 F.T.R. 260; O'Hagan v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 162 F.T.R. 15; Canada (Attorney General) v. Boutilier, [2000] 3 F.C. 27 (C.A.); Byers Transport Ltd. v. Kosanovich, [1995] 3 F.C. 354 (C.A.); Audate (166-2-27755); Tipple v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Treasury Board) (Federal Court File A-66-85) (C.A.).