Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/325656180/Chopra-Haydon-Decision-September-22-2016
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:32:08+00:00

Document:
Decision by the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board on Shiv Chopra and Margaret Haydon.
March 24 to 27, 2015.
suspension grievances in whole or in part.
2015 (Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 205).
section. I have also set out portions of the reasons that relate to the issues before me.
reasons that have a bearing on this rehearing.
disciplinary record at the time her employment was terminated.
this case that the grievors have submitted are relevant to this rehearing.
them that it believed that their comments warranted discipline" (at paragraph 208).
justified on the basis that the employer had only recently become aware of them.
public servants (at paragraph 210).
was no longer possible" (at paragraph 212).
and a further 10 months on Dr. Haydon (at paragraph 214).
of the PSIO report and her absence from the workplace (at paragraph 215).
factor to consider when assessing the suspensions (at paragraph 216).
chronology to support the delay. It was introduced at the point of the hearing when Dr.
impossibility of including all the evidence in a decision.
I reserved my determination on this objection at the rehearing.
outstanding issues. The Federal Court did not limit the parties in their submissions.
document (Exhibit G-267) in my reasons. As will be seen, I determined that Ms.
the submissions in corning to this decision.
progressive discipline required that they be reinstated to their positions.
stale discipline of Dr. Haydon.
Court decision that I have summarized earlier in this decision.
statements made that were upheld by an earlier Federal Court decision (Haydon v.
v. Hockin,  0.]. No. 36 (QL) at para. 13, which refers to "any considerable time"
evidence of prejudice or unfairness to the employee.
He submitted that all four of these factors were at play in this case.
employer to do so at this rehearing.
acts is removed, an essential part of the grounds for discipline is removed.
paragraph 218) was conclusive and determinative of the speaking-out grievances.
the appropriate amount of discipline, short of termination.
this significant discipline, the termination of her employment was not justified.
of the total amount of discipline will have been removed from his disciplinary record.
would allow the employer to re-argue its case.
relied on prior stale discipline to support it.
to address any issues arising out of my order.
of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Maan, 2005 FC 1682, and Parmalat Canada Inc. v.
ought to have looked at and then provides guidance on examining them.
are not for [it] to decide".
this as the employee not knowing the employer's intent.
v. Champs Mushrooms Inc.,  C.LA.D. No. 55 (QL)).
there must be some evidence of it; see Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. v.
International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 771,  O.L.A.A. No.
which he acknowledged that he had received a warning from Ms. Kirkpatrick. Dr.
Chopra also acknowledged in interviews that discipline might follow from his actions.
did not believe that the deputy head was permitting him to speak to the media.
grievors' representative that there was a process that could lead to potential discipline.
Counsel submitted that it was clear to both the grievors and their counsel that the factfinding processes were a step on the disciplinary path.
the grievors and a hearing before the Public Service Staff Relations Board involving Dr.
imposed by the deputy head. In addition, she referred me to testimony from Dr.
misconduct was antithetical to a viable employment relationship with both grievors.
considering the grievor's inability to reform his or her misconduct-generating attitude.
She submitted that the analysis in my original decision used similar reasoning. In Dr.
continue when an employee chooses what he or she wants to do.
make a proper determination on the terminations.
misconduct is so serious that it struck at the heart of the employment relationship.
discharge as null and void.
the claim that I could make a decision inconsistent with the Federal Court's reasons.
with these reasons" is that I am bound by those reasons.
and that I must follow those directions.
and did not affect the scope of the rehearing.
assessment of the law on judicial review, I cannot follow them.
Counsel submitted that a delay in imposing discipline may render it void (seeM.
employee's behaviour will be deemed to have been condoned.
contained in its factum to the Federal Court, as it was attempting to do in this case.
longer possible" (at paragraph 212).
the facts in these grievances.
arguments in reaching this decision.
Dr. Chopra's 20-day suspension was imposed on December 9, 2003. Dr.
May of 2003, and his suspension was imposed seven months after his return to work.
between the release of the PSIO report and her absence from work.
failure to do so in a timely manner can constitute condonation of the misconduct.
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1718 v. Stapleford Medical Management Inc.
(2007), 88 C.L.A.S. 362, at paras. 81 to 84.
decision without commenting on the Federal Court's observations in the decision.
sense of security on their part.
The fact-finding processes were explicitly not disciplinary in nature.
The employer was aware of the comments soon after they were made.
grievors were going to speak out, and she did not stop them.
the media were inappropriate before imposing discipline.
The employer made no suggestion of a culminating incident.
imposing discipline from the date of the PSIO report.
whether to risk continuing with their public comments.
failure to advise them of the possibility of discipline.
the case of Dr. Chopra and 10 months for Dr. Haydon).
excuse the length of the further delay imposing discipline.
Dr. Haydon and the 20-day suspension imposed on Dr. Chopra are not appropriate.
Therefore, the related grievances are allowed.
and without considering the discipline imposed on her in 2001.
fresh consideration of progressive discipline, as required by the Federal Court.
Chopra v. Treasury Board (Health Canada), 2003 PSSRB 115, upheld in Chopra v.
Federal Court upheld that decision.
progress updates at regular intervals.
your conduct in that regard constitutes insubordination.
employer employee relationship is no longer viable.
your lengthy years of service.
stronger force to Dr. Chopra's circumstances before me on this rehearing.
no disciplinary record to consider from before her termination of employment.
improvements were expected in your overall performance.
Your response to these events has been most disturbing.
accept any responsibility for your negative performance.
which have been in your possession for over two years.
and not as a separate, independent ground for discipline.
factor in the employer's decision to terminate Dr. Haydon's employment.
employment is no longer there to support it.
extensive oral testimony given by Dr. Haydon during the hearing."
[llO] Dr. Haydon's insubordination warrants a significant disciplinary sanction.
her termination of employment was not preceded by any discipline now on record.
 Accordingly, discipline in the form of a 2 0-day suspension is substituted for Dr.
parties are unable to reach an agreement.
 The grievance against Dr. Chopra's 20-day suspension is allowed.
 The grievance against Dr. Haydon's 10-day suspension is allowed.
 The grievance against Dr. Chopra's termination of employment is dismissed.
suspension of 20 days is substituted.
the implementation of this decision.
Notice: Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Romar Textile Co., Inc.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.