Canadian Employment Law Today

6 | February 15, 2017 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 resolution, leading and coaching, and team building when he was given supervisory duties. He had no formal discipline on his record, though management had to intervene and reach settlements with a mediator on a few occasions where there was a problem with Lewis' interaction with staff. Disciplinary actions were removed from personnel files after 18 months under the collective agreement. In May 2010, Lewis completed a training program to help him be more effective in his position. An action plan stemming from the program identified "strengthening my lead- ership" as an area in need of improvement. An evaluation assessment in June 2015 in- dicated Lewis had "effective communication with his staff and the offenders when in a cri- sis situation" but improvement was needed in terms of him and his staff concentrating on their own work and not worrying about other shifts. e assessment referred to an incident where Lewis spoke to a subordinate officer rather than have the officer's own su- pervisor speak to him. On April 10, 2015, Lewis went to the con- trol room of the Saint John Correctional Centre's unit 5 at the beginning of his shift, looking for the shift admissions officer. Once in the control room, he told the shift admis- sions 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 system — which had been in use for a year — but identified the problem as the board counting weekend inmates on tempo- rary absences twice. Lewis acknowledged that he presented the issue by saying "the count is f---ed up" but denied yelling at the shift admissions officer or acting aggressively towards two other correctional officers who were on duty in the control room. Because an accurate in- mate count is important for public safety, he said he treated the matter urgently. After some discussion, Lewis accepted that count sheets of inmates had been col- lected and that count was right, but still be- lieved the electronic system was incorrect so he put things on hold until the morning when he could speak to an official. e next day, the official confirmed that the ePop had a glitch that counted weekenders on tempo- rary absences twice. A couple of days later, Lewis had what he termed "a light conversation" with the shift admissions officer — but the officer was looking for an apology for Lewis' aggres- sive behaviour. Lewis said "well, I was right about the logs so maybe we should apolo- gize to each other." Employees disturbed by incident On April 13, the two correctional officers who had been on duty in the control room reported the incident to their superiors, who then notified the centre's superintendent. e superintendent opened an investiga- tion and requested statements from both officers and the shift admissions officer. e two correctional officers reported that Lewis used an "aggressive tone of voice" which made them feel uncomfortable. One of the officers said he was outside the control room bubble and could hear Lewis' voice, as could inmates watching television below the observation windows. ey 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 another 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 requested to make a statement, they wouldn't have formally submitted a com- plaint because they feared retribution. Lewis was informed of the complaint against him and the statements of the cor- rections officers involved. He was placed on a paid leave of absence for two weeks "to en- able you to reflect on your career and focus on moving forward in a positive manner" and then reassigned to other duties while the investigation continued. In addition, the deputy minister of public safety sent Lewis a letter outlining his responsibilities and the importance for correctional officers to be "focused, ever vigilant and not be distracted." e HR director for the department met with Lewis to discuss his leave and reassignment and found Lewis to be "quite agitated and preoccupied" as well as frustrated he couldn't perform his regular duties. Lewis wanted to be put back "on the floor" in his old position, but the investigation wasn't complete. 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 — as was suggested in the report — but was told that was not "good enough" and his employment was being terminated. e termination letter stated that "there have been numerous occasions when your behaviour toward management, co-workers and subordinates has not modeled the values of the Department of Public Safety" and, despite attempts to address these issues, the department saw no substantial improvement since his 2010 action plan. Lewis grieved the termination, arguing there wasn't just cause dismissal, nor was progressive discipline followed as required under the collective agreement. e board found Lewis took the attitude that he did no wrong and his meeting in the control room went as usual with no yelling or aggressive behaviour. However, he admitted to using profanity and the three officers in the control room all separately told a different story. e two corrections officers were impacted enough by the incident that they individually told their superiors, said the board. e board also noted that Lewis said he was relatively unfamiliar with the ePop system, but it had been around for a year. erefore, he must have received many counts based on the system and would have been informed if there was a problem with it by officers who used it. His claim that he discovered a problem with the program without being formally trained didn't ring true for the board — not to mention the fact he didn't order a lockdown and manual count of inmates, which he should have done if he really thought there was a problem, said the board. "e more logical interpretation is that Lewis decided to use the ePop program… as a pretext to assert his authority in rela- tion to a junior (correctional officer)," said the board. "Why else would he have com- menced the 'conversation' with the assertion that the count is 'f---ed?' A calm, logical con- versation on the point was not his aim." e board found Lewis was guilty of harassing subordinate employees in an at- tempt to assert his authority — including personal harassment against the shift ad- missions officer — that was in violation of the harassment policy and an abuse of au- thority. Because Lewis' conduct not only constituted harassment but also undermined the officers' authority with inmates and was witnessed by other employees — and his service was "not stellar" though it was lengthy — the board found there was just cause for dismissal. For more information see: • New Brunswick (Department of Justice and Public Safety) and CUPE, Local 1251 (Lew- is), Re, 2016 CarswellNB 545 (N.B. Lab. & Emp. Bd.). « from SUPERVISORS on page 1 Supervisor denied yelling or being aggressive, but three others reported he did Officers feared reprisal if they reported incident

• Cover