FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Sutton v. Treasury Board (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2004-06-03
Citation 2004 PSSRB 50
File Number 166-2-33001
Before Yvon Tarte
Decision Type Labour Relations
Subject Terms Aggressive behaviour towards co-worker
Original Language English
Summary:

No summary has been written for this decision. Please refer to the full text.

Decision Content



Public Service Staff Relations Act

Coat of Arms - Armoiries
  • Date:  2004-06-03
  • File:  166-2-33001
  • Citation:  2004 PSSRB 50

Before the Public Service Staff Relations Board

BETWEEN

ELIZABETH AUDREY SUTTON

Grievor

and

TREASURY BOARD
(Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

Employer

 

EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION DECISION

 

Before:  Yvon Tarte, Chairperson

For the Grievor:   Cécile La Bissonnière, Public Service Alliance of Canada

For the Employer:  Marie-Josée Lemieux

Note:The parties have agreed to deal with the grievance by way of expedited adjudication. The decision is final and binding on the parties and cannot constitute a precedent or be referred for judicial review to the Federal Court.

Heard at Saint-Sauveur, Quebec,
May 11, 2004.

[1]   This grievance involves the imposition of a one-day suspension imposed by the employer on March 6, 2003. The parties filed the following agreed statement of facts:

  1. The grievor, Ms. Sutton, is a CR-5, Administrative Assistant, Claims and Indian Government Directorate, Yukon Region. At the time of the grievance, she had more than 15 years of service in the department of Indian and Northern Affairs and almost 25 years of service in the Federal Government.
  2. On March 6th, 2003, Ms. Sutton received a one-day suspension without pay for behaving in a disrespectful manner towards a colleague, the Information Services Clerk of Records Management, Jenny Whitehouse. The incident occurred on February 21, 2003.
  3. On February 12, 2003, Ms. Sutton received a written reprimand for acting inappropriately towards some of her colleagues.
  4. On February 12, 2003, Ms. Sutton signed the Standards of Professional Conduct that were attached to the written reprimand.
  5. The written reprimand of February 12, 2003 was not grieved.
  6. Ms. Sutton filed a grievance on April 9, 2003, grieving the one-day suspension without pay. The corrective action is to reinstate the one-day pay and benefits and to remove all documents related to this incident from all departmental files.

[2]   The employer argues that Ms. Sutton's actions violate the departmental code of conduct. Further, the discipline imposed is progressive and takes into account a letter of reprimand given to the grievor a month earlier for similar misconduct.

[3]   The grievor has a different recollection of the incidents giving rise to the sanction and feels the employer is being punitive in its approach rather than corrective.

[4]   On the basis of the documentation provided by the parties at the hearing, I conclude that the employer's version of events is the more accurate. Ms. Sutton would be well advised to watch her language and be more respectful of others.

[5]   The grievance is denied.

Yvon Tarte,
Chairperson

Ottawa, June 3, 2004.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.