GSB#2015-1300

UNION#2015-0708-0005

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Caron)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Michael V. Watters

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Thomas Ayers Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

February 16, 2016

Decision

1This proceeding was conducted pursuant to the expedited procedure set out in article 22.16 of the collective agreement. I note, for the record, the parties agreement to extend the time for the issuance of the Decision.

2At the outset, the parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts. The document is appended to, and forms part of, this Decision.

3The Union acknowledges that the grievor uttered a racial slur during an exchange with inmate Bouchard on March 26, 2015 during the evening snack period at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre. More specifically, and as mentioned in the Agreed Statement of Facts, he used the word “nigger” at that time. The Union further acknowledges that some discipline was merited in the circumstances of this case. It claims, however, that a suspension of twenty (20) days without pay was excessive. This Vice-Chair was asked to vary the penalty and to impose some lesser period of suspension. In contrast, the Employer maintained that its initial disciplinary response was measured, reasonable and appropriate. From its perspective, no sound reason was provided to support any reduction in the period of suspension.

4The Union presented the following arguments in support of its position:

i) The grievor had a clear disciplinary record at the time of the incident;

ii) The racial comment was not directed towards inmate Bouchard. Rather, it was directed at a situation. Counsel for the Union emphasized that the grievor made a single comment, rather than multiple statements;

iii) The grievor did not mislead the Employer in his Occurrence Report of April 2, 2015. Instead, he admitted to making the comment in issue;

iv) The grievor similarly admitted to the comment during the Allegation Meeting held on April 8, 2015. He there explained that he meant to convey the inmate was not a slave or servant. On counsel’s analysis, the grievor did not have any malicious intent at the time. He noted the following with respect to the Allegation Meeting: the grievor denied that he had ever previously used the racial slur within the workplace; the grievor admitted that it was not acceptable to use such language at work; and the grievor stated that he would not use the word again. Counsel observed that there was no evidence to indicate the grievor used the same or similar language in the eleven (11) month period following the incident;

v) The grievor reiterated that he was sorry for what had occurred at the meeting of April 14. 2015. Counsel for the Union asserted that, from the earliest instance, the grievor repeatedly apologized for what he said to inmate Bouchard. He noted that the grievor, in fact, offered to apologize to her during the Stage 2 meeting held on May 28, 2015. Counsel suggested that this was not an insignificant gesture;

vi) Counsel for the Union submitted that the grievor fully understood the seriousness of what occurred on March 26, 2015; and

vii) Counsel observed that other work related consequences flowed from the incident in question. More specifically, the grievor was put on the tracking protocol under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy (WDHP); he was required to attend a coaching session and to participate in e-learning courses dealing with discrimination, harassment and diversity; and he was assigned to the male dormitory upon his return to work.

5The Union filed the following authorities in support of its position: Re United Steelworkers of America, Local 3257 and The Steel Equipment Co. Ltd. (1964), 1964 CanLII 984 (ON LA), 14 L.A.C. 356 (Reville); and The Corporation of the City of Hamilton and Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association (2015), 252 L.A.C. (4th) 419 (Hayes).

6The award in Re Steel Equipment Co. Ltd. sets out a number of factors which should be considered in the determination as to whether a disciplinary penalty should be mitigated. Counsel for the Union reviewed the various factors as they relate to the circumstances of this case. He noted as follows: the grievor has a good work record over approximately eight (8) years of service; this was an isolated incident in the employment history of the grievor; the comment in issue was directed at a situation, rather than at a specific individual; the comment was made on the spur of the moment and was not premeditated; and the grievor offered to apologize to the inmate and repeatedly apologized to the Employer. Counsel observed that the twenty (20) day suspension imposed in this instance amounted to significant discipline. He argued that the Employer failed to apply the concept of progressive discipline when it opted to resort to a suspension of this length. Counsel submitted that the object of specific and general deterrence could have been achieved through a suspension of less than twenty (20) days.

7In Re Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association, a fire fighter was terminated for two (2) incidents which were closely related in terms of timeframe. On August 4, 2012, the grievor and a co-worker, who was black, engaged in a physical altercation. On August 7, 2012, the grievor made a racist comment to other employees about this same co-worker. At arbitration, the termination was set aside. A five (5) day suspension was imposed for the altercation and a ten (10) day suspension was imposed for the racist comment. Counsel for the Union argued that this represented a ten (10) day suspension for a second offence. He suggested that the instant grievor should therefore have his suspension reduced to a period of less than ten (10) days. Counsel maintained that the circumstances existing in Re Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association were substantially similar to those found in this case. He noted as follows in this regard: the fire fighter disciplined had ten (10) years of service, while the instant grievor has approximately eight (8) years of service; both the fire fighter and this grievor had a clear disciplinary record; it was an isolated incident in both instances; and both fire fighters and Correctional Officers are held to a higher standard. Counsel further stressed that the racist comment made by the fire fighter was directed at a specific individual. He reiterated that, in this case, the grievor’s comment was focused on a situation and that it represented an attempt to convey the concept of a servant.

8The Employer presented the following arguments in support of its position:

i) It was inappropriate for a Correctional Officer, who was entrusted with the care, custody, control and supervision of inmates, to make a racist comment in the workplace. Counsel for the Employer submitted that the making of such a comment within a correctional facility amounted to extremely serious misconduct. He argued that the grievor should have known that directing a racial slur towards an inmate was completely unacceptable. Counsel referenced the grievor’s training record in support of this argument. He noted that, in this instance, the comment was made to a female aboriginal inmate. On his analysis, the grievor failed to appreciate both the gravity of his misconduct and the adverse impact it could have had on the inmate in question, other inmates, other staff and on the facility at large. Counsel emphasized that the communication which occurred here was between a Correctional Officer and an inmate and not between co-workers, as was the case in Re Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association. He argued that Correctional Officers are held to a higher standard of conduct;

ii) The Employer has an obligation to maintain a workplace free of racism, discrimination and harassment and to take swift and appropriate steps to respond to the type of misconduct which occurred here. Counsel observed that the Position Description Report for the grievor’s position states that Correctional Officers perform their duties within an “anti-racism organization”;

iii) The word “nigger” is a vile word which is associated with a history of hate. Counsel submitted that the word, when used, is intended to shame, humiliate and strip the person to whom it is directed of their dignity. He maintained that these effects are magnified when the word is used by a Correctional Officer towards an inmate. Counsel argued that the grievor’s use of a racial slur should be measured objectively without a requirement to prove a specific intent;

iv) There is a need to deter the grievor specifically, and others within the institution generally, from making racial slurs of the type communicated in this case. This Vice-Chair was asked to convey a strong message that any similar communication will not be tolerated. Counsel suggested that a reduction of the penalty assessed here would undermine that result; and

v) The grievor was not forthright at the outset, as he did not report the incident to his Operational Manager, or file an Occurrence Report on same, on March 26, 2015. Counsel noted that the exchange between the grievor and inmate Bouchard only came to the Employer’s attention after another Correctional Officer overheard an exchange between inmates on March 31, 2015, some five (5) days later. He further noted that the grievor acted, as he did, in the hope that inmate Mendowegan would not bring a complaint forward concerning his use of a racial slur. Counsel added that the grievor’s election to not bring the incident to the Employer’s immediate attention was not a spur of the moment decision.

9The Employer filed the following authorities in support of its position: Borden v. Bob’s Taxi, [2015] N.S.H.R.B.I.D. No. 4 (James); R.v. A.B. (2012), NSPC 31; OPSEU (Tardiel et al.) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, GSB #2005-1443 et al., (December 16, 2010) (Albertyn); OPSEU (Blacquiere et al.) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, GSB #2012-0209, (September 11, 2015) (Albertyn); Re Government of Province of British Columbia and British Columbia Government Employees Union (Correctional Services Component) (1987), 1987 CanLII 8881 (BC LA), 27 L.A.C. (3d) 311 (Hope); OPSEU (Beltrano et al.) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, GSB #2003-3597, (August 11, 2008) (Petryshen); OPSEU (Collin) and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, GSB #1999-0730, 159 L.A.C. (4th) 186, (March 30, 2007) (Harris); Kemess Mines Ltd. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115 (Goudreau Grievance) (2006), 2006 CanLII 93359 (BC LA), 152 L.A.C. (4th) 232 (Hope); Evraz North America and United Steel Workers, Local 6034 (Langan Grievance), [2015] A.G.A.A. No. 24 (Tettensor); Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union v. Saskatchewan (Ministry of Corrections, Public Safety and Policing) (Hawryluk Grievance) (2009), 106 C.L.A.S. 157 (Brossart); Calgary (City) v. Calgary Fire Fighters Assn., International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 255 (Hendricks Grievance) (2012), 221 L.A.C. (4th) 283 (Casey); Teck Metals Ltd. (Trail Operations) v. United Steelworkers, Local 480 (Oliver Grievance) (2015), 254 L.A.C. (4th) 333 (Nichols); XL Foods Inc. (Lakeside Packers Operations) v. United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 401 (Keita Grievance), [2011] A.G.A.A. No. 39 (Power); OPSEU (Gillies) and Ministry of Correctional Services, GSB #1977-0129, (November 7, 1978) (Pritchard).

10The Union’s position held some initial attraction for this Vice-Chair, given that a significant suspension was imposed for a first, albeit serious, workplace offence. After considerable thought, however, I have concluded that the duration of the suspension should not be reduced for the reasons set out below.

11A discrepancy exists with respect to what the grievor actually said to inmate Bouchard. Inmate Mendowegan reported that the grievor said, “Get your own jug up. What is she, your nigger?” In contrast, the grievor in his Occurrence Report of April 2, 2015 stated that he made the following comment to inmate Bouchard: “Tell her to come and get her own. Your (sic.) not her nigger”. I am inclined to accept the grievor’s account as to what was said as, in substance, he was saying to inmate Bouchard that inmate Michano should get her own snack, rather than have inmate Bouchard do it for her. I consider this discrepancy to be immaterial as, in either case, the grievor used a vile and racist term in his communication with inmate Bouchard. In so doing, he disparaged and degraded a visible minority group. While the language used may not have been specifically directed at inmate Bouchard, it remained offensive and unacceptable.

12The use of the word “nigger” has been the subject of some comment in the jurisprudence. In Borden v. Bob’s Taxi, the Panel Chair stated:

“There can be no dispute that the language used by Mr. Osipenkov is deplorable. It is language that is debilitating to African-Canadians. The use of the word “nigger” demeans, humiliates and asserts a dangerous sense of racial superiority. It is often dismissed as arising from anger or loss of control but that is not an answer. The demeaning language reveals an underlying disrespect and hostility. It must not be tolerated in any way and condemned at every opportunity.”

(paragraph 145)

13The presiding Judge in R.v. A.B. stated that the word “nigger” has become one of the most reviled utterances in modern culture. He made the following observation concerning the impact resulting from the use of the word:

“The excision of the word from the general lexicon is on the one hand a mark of respect. That one word carries with it the baggage of centuries of slavery, racism, abuse and disrespect. Our collective refusal to utter it makes a statement about our shared values. On the other hand, removing it from use has given it the status of a wicked verbal talisman. It was and is a hurtful word. Now it has power beyond almost any other. The sad paradox is that the more the word is shunned, the more powerful it seems to have become.”

(paragraph 41)

14Correctional Officers are responsible for the care, custody, control and supervision of inmates. In doing so, they are required to exercise their duties in a professional and respectful manner. Indeed, this forms part of the training provided to Correctional Officers by the Employer. Here, the grievor breached this requirement and, in the process, violated the Code of Conduct and Professionalism, the Statement of Ethical Principles and the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.

15The racial slur made by the grievor on March 26, 2015 has no place in a correctional facility. Not only does it degrade, disrespect and insult the recipient, but it also has the potential to adversely impact other inmates, other staff and the operation of the institution at large. In my judgment, the grievor engaged in serious misconduct when he used the word “nigger” during his exchange with inmate Bouchard. It is apparent that inmate Mendowegan considered the grievor’s language to be objectionable. She informed him later in the shift that she was going to file a complaint. Inmate Mendowegan subsequently spoke to an Operational Manager and a Sergeant about the incident. Similarly, another Correctional Officer considered the matter to be sufficiently serious to report the conversation he later overheard between inmate Mendowegan and two (2) other inmates. The fact that the exchange in issue occurred between a Correctional Officer and an inmate in a correctional setting distinguishes this case from Hamilton Professional Fire Fighters Association which, as mentioned, involved interactions between co-workers.

16Ultimately, this Vice-Chair accepts the Employer’s submission that a strong message must be communicated to the grievor and others that racial slurs and comments will not be tolerated within the workplace and that serious discipline will be imposed for any breach of this legitimate expectation.

17It is readily apparent the grievor knew during his shift on March 26, 2015 that inmate Mendowegan overheard his racial slur and might be submitting a complaint about it. He elected, however, not to report the exchange to the Operational Manager on duty or to detail same in an Occurrence Report before or at the end of his shift. Admittedly, the grievor waited to see whether the inmate actually filed a complaint. Simply put, he hoped that she would not bring the matter forward and that the racial slur would never come to light. Indeed, it is likely that the incident would not have come to the Employer’s attention but for the fact another Correctional Officer overheard the discussion between inmates on March 31, 2015. In my judgment, the grievor should have reported the content of his exchange with inmate Bouchard on March 26, 2015. As noted, he waited to April 2, 2015 to file an Occurrence Report and did so only after the Employer had learned of it.

18To the grievor’s credit, he admitted to his misconduct and expressed some regret for same in his meetings with the Employer on April 8, April 14 and May 28, 2015. He also offered to apologize to the inmate at the latter meeting. This Vice-Chair would have been inclined to place greater weight on these apologies if the grievor had reported the exchange in a more timely fashion. Clearly, apologies would not have been forthcoming if this incident had not come to light, as described in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

19In summary, I have not been persuaded to substitute a lesser period of suspension, as requested by the Union. In all of the circumstances, the level of discipline imposed was reasonable given the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter both the grievor and others from similar misconduct going forward.

20The grievance is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 16th day of March 2016.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

1. Robert (“Bob”) Caron (“the Grievor”) is a regular full-time correctional officer employed at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre (“TBCC”).

2. The Grievor has approximately 8 years and two months of service. He has a seniority date of December 3, 2007 and his continuous service date is September 14, 2009. He had no discipline on his file at the time of the incident discussed below.

The Incident Giving Rise to the Discipline

3. On March 31, 2015, inmate Myrna Mendowegan complained to Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) staff that a Correctional Officer (“CO”) had made an inappropriate and racist comment to another inmate on March 26, 2015, which she had overheard. The CO who made the comment was later affirmatively identified as the Grievor.

Tab 1 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by S. Wilson.

4. Specifically, inmate Mendowegan claimed that the Grievor had said, “Get your own jug up. What is she, your nigger?” to inmate Jessica Bouchard during the evening snack period at the TBCC.

Tab 1 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by S. Wilson.

5. On March 31, 2015, CO Shane Wilson submitted an Occurrence Report (“OR”) that stated he had heard inmate Mendowegan talking to two other inmates (Melanie Jabic and Christine Arnould) that a CO had made a racial slur towards another inmate. Inmate Mendowegan initially referred to the CO as “Guard Gary”, but it is not disputed that the CO who made the comment was the Grievor. CO Wilson made notes about the incident and contacted OM Dean Hauth. OM Hauth was told that an inmate was being escorted to his office without any further details.

Tab 1 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by S. Wilson.

6. CO2 Debra Young submitted an OR that stated that CO Wilson showed her the notes he made on the incident and asked her to escort inmate Mendowegan to OM Hauth’s office. CO2 Young escorted inmate Mendowegan to OM Hauth’s office and observed the discussion between OM Hauth and inmate Mendowegan.

Tab 2 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by D. Young.

7. In CO2 Young’s presence, inmate Mendowegan said that a CO had used “the N word” on March 26, 2015. Inmate Mendowegan stated she called the CO “Bob.” Inmate Mendowegan had written a letter about the incident, but would not let OM Hauth keep a copy of the letter. Inmate Mendowegan expressed reluctance about making a complaint, but later stated that she would speak to the Superintendent of TBCC about the incident. CO2 Young escorted inmate Mendowegan from OM Hauth’s office.

Tab 2 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by D. Young.

8. OM Hauth submitted an OR that also stated that inmate Mendowegan had told him that on March 26, 2015, the Grievor had said something to an inmate to the effect of “Get your own jug up. What is she, your nigger?” Inmate Mendowegan stated she referred to the CO as Bob. OM Hauth checked HPRO and confirmed that the Grievor was on duty that night. OM Hauth wrote that inmate Mendowegan had written down an account of the incident on a paper, although she would not let OM Hauth have the paper or make a copy of it. She was asked if she wanted to make a complaint. Inmate Mendowegan did not.

Tab 3 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by D. Hauth.

9. On April 2, 2015, Sergeant John Hauth interviewed inmate Mendowegan about the complaint she made on March 31, 2015. Inmate Mendowegan affirmed that she heard a CO say to an inmate, “Get your own jug up. What is she…your nigger?” The inmate was not sure if it was CO Caron who made the comment.

Tab 4 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by J. Hauth

10. On April 2, 2015, the Grievor was directed to write an OR about the incident that occurred on March 26, 2015. In his OR, the Grievor admitted that at approximately 20:15 he saw inmate Jessica Bouchard carrying two cups of tea and two fruits and he asked her why. Inmate Bouchard replied that one set was for inmate Elaine Michano. The Grievor stated that he replied to inmate Bouchard, “Tell her to come and get her own. Your [sic] not her nigger.”

Tab 5 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by B. Caron.

11. Later that shift, the Grievor stated that inmate Mendowegan told him that he had called another inmate a “niger” [sic]. He said it was then he realized he had used this word in a directive. He stated that he had not used the word in a condescending manner. The Grievor was informed by inmate Mendowegan that she would be submitting a complaint about the incident.

Tab 5 of Joint Book of Documents – OR submitted by B. Caron.

The Allegation Meeting

12. On April 2, 2015, the Grievor was provided a letter signed by Deputy Superintendent Dave Andrusco of TBCC that requested that the Grievor attend an allegation meeting for the purpose of responding to an allegation that on March 26, 2015, he violated five sections of the Code of Conduct and Professionalism by directing a racial slur towards an offender.

Tab 6 of Joint Book of Documents – Allegation Meeting Letter (April 2, 2015).

Tab 7 of Joint Book of Documents – Section I: Code of Conduct and Professionalism (On Duty).

13. The allegation meeting letter specified that it was alleged that on March 26, 2015, the Grievor:

While issuing offender evening snacks or “jug-up” you made inappropriate comments to an offender. In doing so;

1. You violated the Code of Conduct and Professionalism Section I, 1. To perform our duties with honesty and integrity, b. Act with propriety, honesty, integrity, impartiality, fairness and in an ethical manner.

2. You violated the Code of Conduct and Professionalism Section I 2. – Fulfil our duties in a diligent, capable, and courteous manner – Present a professional image in appearance, actions and words.

3. You violated the Code of Conduct and Professionalism Section I 2. – Fulfil our duties in a diligent, capable, and courteous manner – under no circumstances shall any person be subject to threatening, humiliating, bullying or degrading treatment.

4. You violated the Code of Conduct and Professionalism Section I 3. – fulfil our responsibility to colleagues and clients by fostering and maintaining working relationships based on mutual respect, dignity and cooperation, e. ensure interactions with clients remain professional, free from impropriety and respect and uphold their human and legal rights.

5. You violated the Code of Conduct and Professionalism Section I 3. i. not participate in or condone any form of harassment, discrimination, reprisal or bullying (e.g. derogatory name calling, using insulting terms, comments or behavior.

6. An allegation meeting occurred on April 8, 2015, with the Grievor, Ernie Brayshaw (Union representative), OM D. Hauth and Deputy Superintendent Andrusco. At the allegation meeting the Grievor did not deny using a racial slur towards inmate Bouchard. He explained he had used the wrong word and that the word was not a “faux pas” when he was younger as it is today. He explained he meant “servant” or “slave” when using the word. He explained that he was trying to say that inmate Bouchard was not a servant.

Tab 8 of Joint Book of Documents – Allegation Meeting Notes by Dean Hauth and Dave Andrusco (April 8, 2015).

15. At the allegation meeting, the Grievor denied ever using that word in the workplace previously. He admitted that this was not acceptable language in the workplace and said he had no malicious intent when he used the word. The Grievor stated he did not report the incident to the sergeant on duty because he hoped that inmate Mendowegan would not bring the matter forward. The Grievor stated he didn’t think the incident would be this serious. He stated he wouldn’t use the word again.

Tab 8 of Joint Book of Documents – Allegation Meeting Notes by Dean Hauth and Dave Andrusco (April 8, 2015).

16. OM D. Hauth wrote an addendum to his notes to the allegation meeting summarizing his conclusions about the Grievor’s statements after the allegation meeting.

Tab 8 of Joint Book of Documents – Allegation Meeting Notes by Dean Hauth and Dave Andrusco (April 8, 2015).

The Discipline

17. The following day Deputy Andrusco completed an Employee Report re: Summary of Findings. The document summarized the incident, the allegations against the Grievor and the Grievor’s statements at the allegation meeting. The Employee Report also summarized some additional factors to consider when deciding whether to impose discipline and the quantum of any discipline, including the nature of incident, whether there was any provocation, the seriousness of the offence and whether the Grievor demonstrated any remorse or contrition.

Tab 9 of Joint Book of Documents – Employee Report re: Summary of Findings (April 9, 2015).

18. On April 9, 2015, the complaint that named the Grievor was assessed as in scope of a breach of the WDHP Policy on the ground of race. It was advised that Direct Management Action could be taken as the facts were not in dispute. The Grievor was placed on the tracking protocol.

Tab 10 of Joint Book of Documents – Email from Centre for Employee Health, Safety & Wellness (April 9, 2015).

19. The Grievor was given a letter from Deputy Superintendent Andrusco on April 10, 2015, requesting he attend a meeting on April 14, 2015 to follow-up on the allegation meeting that occurred on April 8.

Tab 11 of Joint Book of Documents – Follow-Up to April 8 2015 Allegation Meeting Letter (April 10, 2015).

20. On April 14, 2015, the Grievor was given a letter of suspension and informed that he was suspended for 20 days without pay. The letter stated that the allegations were substantiated and the Grievor acknowledged he had used a racial slur directed at an offender. Further, the Grievor admitted that he did not report this to the OM on duty and did not intend to unless the offender came forward with a complaint. The Employer determined the Grievor’s actions were extremely serious.

Tab 12 of Joint Book of Documents – Letter of Suspension (April 14, 2015).

Tab 13 of Joint Book of Documents – Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.

21. The letter summarized the Grievor’s comments during the allegation meeting:

During this meeting you acknowledged the fact that you were aware of the Ministry’s Code of Conduct and Professionalism. During this meeting you also did acknowledge using a racial slur directed at an offender. During this meeting you acknowledged that you did not report this to the Operational Manager on duty and you did not immediately submit an Occurrence Report. During this meeting you stated that you did not intend to submit an Occurrence Report unless the offender came forward with a complaint. During this meeting you stated that you did not feel that you “insulted or degraded” the offender.

Tab 12 of Joint Book of Documents – Letter of Suspension (April 14, 2015).

22. The letter concluded:

As a Peace Officer, your actions are held to a very high standard. In the future, the Employer expects that you will maintain that standard at all times and that you comply with the Ministry’s Code of Conduct and the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy. I must stress that your actions in this instance are extremely serious and troubling to the Employer, and that similar actions on your part will not be tolerated in the future. I hope that you recognise the seriousness of your situation. Should there be any further incidents of this nature, you may be subject to further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal.

Tab 12 of Joint Book of Documents – Letter of Suspension (April 14, 2015).

23. The Griever was also informed that the incident was assessed as being within the scope of a breach of the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (“WDHP”) Policy and that he would be required to attend a coaching session and participate in e-learning courses dealing with discrimination, harassment and diversity. Later, the Grievor did take and complete the e-learning courses, as directed. He was further informed that, as a non-disciplinary administrative action in relation to this matter, he would be assigned to the male dormitory upon his return to work.

Tab 12 of Joint Book of Documents – Letter of Suspension (April 14, 2015).

Tab 13 of Joint Book of Documents – Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.

24. At the meeting where the Grievor was given the letter of suspension, he reiterated that he was sorry. Superintendent Karen Machado expressed that the word was very inappropriate and that there was a zero tolerance policy towards racism.

Tab 14 of Joint Book of Documents – Suspension Meeting Notes (April 14, 2015).

THE GRIEVANCE

25. On April 22, 2015, the Grievor filed a grievance form. He claimed that he was “excessively disciplined” and that he had used an inappropriate term when speaking with an inmate, but had not directed the word at the inmate. As a remedy, the Grievor requested he be provided full pay with interest for the entire period of his suspension, the removal of any record of suspension and to be re-assigned to the female unit at TBCC.

Tab 15 of Joint Book of Documents – Grievance Form (April 22, 2015).

26. On May 28, 2015 a stage two meeting was held with the Grievor, Shawn Bradshaw (Union representative), Kent Broughton (Human Resources Advisor) and Glen Cahill (manager). At the stage two meeting, the Grievor apologized for using the word, stated he understood the seriousness of what had occurred and re-stated that he did not mean it in a derogatory or racial sense. He offered to apologize to the inmate. The grievance was denied in a letter to the Grievor dated June 3, 2015.

Tab 16 of Joint Book of Documents – Letter re: Your Grievance dated 22 April 2015 (June 3, 2015).