FPSLREB Decisions

[1]    Martin Cyr has been employed by Parks Canada since 1983. In the summer of 2003, he received three disciplinary sanctions.

[2]    This case concerns insults or threats said to have been made by Mr. Cyr to two of his line supervisors on September 3 and 4, 2003.

[3]    On September 18, 2003, the grievor received a disciplinary sanction of four working days without pay, or 40 hours. In the following days, he filed a grievance challenging this action. The grievance was referred to adjudication on February 27, 2004, and the hearing took place in October 2004. The evidence at the hearing also related to two other cases, which will be the subject of separate decisions, namely, a sanction for sleeping in the workplace (166-33-33266) and a harassment case (166-33-33268).

The facts

[4]    Mr. Cyr works at Havre-Saint-Pierre where Parks Canada operates the Mingan Islands tourist site. Parks Canada boats are used to take employees to the islands to provide animation services and act as tourist guides. Several boats are used to transport the animator-guides to the islands. The trip takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes. On board the boat, the captain sits in the pilothouse, and Mr. Cyr acts as the maintenance and security clerk. His job is to see to the maintenance and cleanliness of the docks and washrooms and to security on the boat (casting off and stowing materials transported by the guides).

[5]    During the summer of 2003, the Director of the Mingan Islands Park, Stéphane Marchand, and the Chief, Technical Services, Pierre Kavanagh, met with Mr. Cyr on several occasions to discuss his actions and impose disciplinary sanctions on him.

[6]    Mr. Marchand admitted that relations with Mr. Cyr were tense because the latter had voiced a number of criticisms in 2002 about his classification.

[7]    The first meeting took place on July 15, 2003, when they discussed the events that had occurred on July 14, 2003, when Mr. Cyr was caught sleeping on a boat. On that occasion, Mr. Kavanagh was directly involved, since it was he who had taken photographs and investigated the incidents of July 14, 2003 (166-33-33266).

[8]    It appears from the documents filed in evidence and the testimony that, in August 2003, the administration had conducted an investigation into Mr. Cyr's conduct in relation to the female staff with whom he had to work. On August 20, 2003, Mr. Cyr was called in to discuss the events that had occurred during the summer on the Rorqual Bleu when he had to take employees (animator-guides) back to the Islands.

[9]    On September 3, 2003, Mr. Cyr attended another meeting and was given a letter summarizing the facts and indicating the disciplinary sanction that was imposed on him. On this occasion, Mr. Cyr allegedly spoke aggressively to Mr. Marchand, saying that the "girls" had made no complaints, and that he was waiting for him, that he would have problems.

[10]    After the September 3, 2003 meeting, Mr. Cyr talked to his union representative who told him that, in the letter of September 3, 2003, the Director, Mr. Marchand, did not say that Mr. Cyr had offered to apologize to the employees whom he had supposedly offended.

[11]    The next day, on September 4, 2003, Mr. Cyr saw Mr. Marchand talking to a resident of Havre-Saint-Pierre in the office parking lot. He interrupted the conversation and, alluding to the document of September 3, 2003, called Mr. Marchand a liar. Subsequently, seeing him at the door to the office, he told him that he would come back with his lawyers.

[12]    On that day, September 4, 2003, Mr. Cyr had to go to the office of the Chief, Technical Services, Mr. Kavanagh, to sign some time sheets. Upset by the events of recent days, Mr. Cyr spoke to the Chief of his service rather curtly. He alluded in particular to the fact that his lawyer was going to take action against him, that he was going to lose his job.

[13]    After these incidents, the Director prepared a statement of facts and called Mr. Cyr to a disciplinary meeting on September 15, 2003 (Exhibit E-12).

[14]    On September 18, 2003, Mr. Cyr was given a disciplinary sanction of four working days without pay, or 40 hours (Exhibit E-13).

[15]    In his testimony, Mr. Cyr explained the background of the events of September 3 and 4, 2003. He said that, after the August 20, 2003 meeting about the sexual harassment allegations, he had consulted a police officer. The latter told him that there were allegations but no formal complaint had been signed by the employees. Mr. Cyr then decided that the situation was being exaggerated since there was no formal complaint.

[16]    Concerning Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Cyr said that not just he but a number of Havre-Saint-Pierre residents, as well, were critical of the Chief, Technical Services. Mr. Cyr indicated that Mr. Kavanagh favoured some friends and relatives and was stricter towards other employees.

[17]    On September 4, 2003, it is true that he had told him that someone would take him "back to the other side of the tracks". Mr. Cyr explained that this was a local expression: when people in the village were upset with some undesirable person, they would tell him to move outside the village, i.e., to the other side of the railway tracks situated at the entrance to the village.

[18]    Mr. Cyr said that he had not talked about physical threats but that it was his lawyer who would take care of suing Mr. Kavanagh and the Director.

The parties' arguments

[19]    The employer maintained that the facts spoke for themselves and that Mr. Cyr's words constituted an attack against authority and disrupted the working environment. The administrators must make decisions about the employees' conduct; this is part of their duties and it is inappropriate to make personal comments to them.

[20]    The grievor's representative maintained that relations were difficult between management and Mr. Cyr, and that Mr. Cyr felt that he was treated too harshly.

Reasons for decision

[21]    It is true that the events of September 3 and 4, 2003, reflect the various tense exchanges and discussions that took place between the administration and Mr. Cyr during the summer of 2003.

[22]    I must remind Mr. Cyr that he was called to the office of the Park Director because of the wrongful acts he had committed in the workplace.

[23]    The collective agreement provides for a formal meeting process. If Mr. Cyr was dissatisfied with a report or an action by the employer, he could discuss it in the context of a formal meeting and be accompanied by a union representative.

[24]    At the grievance hearing, Mr. Cyr persisted in maintaining an aggressive attitude towards his superiors. He played the role of the victim rather than that of the guilty party.

[25]    Although the grievor may disagree about the harshness of the disciplinary measures imposed on him, he must understand that threats cannot change the administration's role in maintaining discipline and the working environment.

[26]    Despite the foregoing, the employer should have taken the context into account and should have remembered that the months of July and August 2003 were crowded with discussions, investigations and possible sanctions.

[27]    The evidence reveals no previous incidents of that nature. At the meetings in July and August 2003, there were no allegations of threats by Mr. Cyr.

[28]    In view of the charged context in July and August 2003 and the fact that it was the first offence of this nature, I shall allow the grievance in part and, in place of the sanction imposed by the employer, I am substituting a disciplinary sanction equivalent to one (1) day of work without pay, or 10 hours.

Jean-Pierre Tessier,
Board Member

OTTAWA, February 10, 2005

P.S.S.R.B. Translation