Canadian Labour Reporter

7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 CANADIAN LABOUR REPORTER NEWS though management had to inter- vene and reach settlements with a mediator on a few occasions where there was a problem with Lewis' interaction with staff. Disciplinary actions were re- moved from personnel files after 18 months under the collective agreement. In 2010, Lewis completed a training program to help him be more effective. An action plan identified "strengthening my lead- ership" as an area in need of im- provement. On April 10, 2015, Lewis went to the control room of the Saint John Correctional Centre's unit five at the beginning of his shift, looking for the shift admissions officer. Once in the control room, he told the officer that there was a "problem with the count" — the inmate population counted on the ePop board, an electronic system that kept track of the number of inmates. Lewis didn't have formal training yet on the new ePop sys- tem, but identified the problem as the board counting weekend inmates on temporary absences twice. Lewis acknowledged that he presented the issue by saying "the count is f---ed up" but denied yell- ing or acting aggressively towards two other officers who were on duty. Because an accurate inmate count is crucial for public safety, he said he treated the matter urgently. After some discussion, Lewis accepted that count sheets of in- mates had been collected and that count was right, but still believed the electronic system was incor- rect so he put things on hold until the morning. The next day, the official con- firmed that the ePop had a glitch that counted weekenders on tem- porary absences twice. A couple of days later, Lewis had what he termed "a light conversa- tion" with the shift admissions of- ficer — the officer was looking for an apology for Lewis' aggressive behaviour. "Well, I was right about the logs so maybe we should apol- ogize to each other," said Lewis. Workers disturbed by incident On April 13, the two correctional officers who had been on duty in the control room reported the in- cident to their superiors, who then notified the superintendent. The superintendent opened an inves- tigation and requested statements from all three officers. The two officers reported that Lewis used an "aggressive tone of voice" which made them feel un- comfortable. One of the officers said he was outside the bubble and could hear Lewis' voice, as could inmates watching television below the observation windows. They felt Lewis was undermining the shift admission officer's authority with the inmates, but Lewis told one of them to "Stay out of this" after she tried to defuse the situation. One of the officers also said she had been belittled by Lewis on an- other occasion. She reported that after the April 10 incident, Lewis asked her if she wanted to leave the shift and implied that she had been in the wrong. Both officers said that if they hadn't been re- quested to make statements, they wouldn't have done so because they feared retribution. Lewis was informed of the com- plaint against him, placed on a paid leave of absence for two weeks and then he was reassigned while the investigation continued. On Oct. 8, Lewis was given an investigator's report and asked to comment on it. Lewis offered to apologize to the shift admissions officer but he was told that was not good enough and his employ- ment was being terminated. The termination letter stated that "there have been numerous occasions when your behaviour toward management, co-workers and subordinates has not modelled the values of the Department of Public Safety" and the department saw no substantial improvement since his 2010 action plan. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) grieved the ter- mination, arguing there wasn't just cause for dismissal, nor was pro- gressive discipline followed. Adjudicator John McEvoy found Lewis took the attitude that he did no wrong and his meeting in the control room had no yelling or aggressive behaviour. However, he admitted to using profanity and the three officers in the con- trol room disagreed with Lewis. The two corrections officers were impacted enough that they both told their superiors, said McEvoy. Lewis said he was relatively unfamiliar with the ePop system, but it had been around for a year. Therefore, he must have received many counts based on the system and would have been informed if there was a problem with it by of- ficers who used it. His claim that he discovered a problem with the program without being formally trained didn't ring true for the board. As well, Lewis didn't order a lockdown and manual count of inmates, which he should have done if he really thought there was a problem, said McEvoy. "The more logical interpreta- tion is that Lewis decided to use the ePop program as a pretext to assert his authority in relation to a junior (officer)," said McEvoy. "Why else would he have com- menced the 'conversation' with the assertion that the count is 'f---ed?' A calm, logical conversa- tion on the point was not his aim." McEvoy found Lewis was guilty of harassing subordinate employ- ees in an attempt to assert his au- thority that was in violation of the harassment policy and an abuse of authority. Because Lewis' conduct not only constituted harassment but it undermined the officers' author- ity, was witnessed by other em- ployees, and his service was "not stellar," McEvoy found there was just cause for dismissal. For more information see: • New Brunswick (Department of Justice and Public Safety) and CUPE, Local 1251 (Lewis), Re, 2016 CarswellNB 545 (N.B. Lab. & Emp. Bd.). < Prison pg. 1 Arbitrator finds supervisor wanted to 'assert his authority' Photo: Jerry-Rainey (Shutterstock)

• Cover