Labour board rules CSC officer should not be disciplined for giving buildings the finger

A dog handler with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) should not have been disciplined for giving the middle finger to federal buildings, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board has ruled. Correctional officer Glen Collison was disciplined in 2019 for “giving the middle finger to a federal government building” and received a $285 financial penalty, equivalent to one day’s pay.

The board’s report says Collison went with his new dog to a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) training facility in July 2019 for a five-week recertification course. He was a correctional officer at Millhaven Institution in Bath, Ont.; the CSC does not conduct its own dog-handling certification. Collison did not enjoy the training, the report says. Shortly before graduation, he was speaking with three other people in the parking lot of a CBSA building. Asked whether he was glad to be leaving, he said yes. Someone then asked what would happen if he were not allowed to go home. Collison said he could, of course, go home, but the person again asked what if he were not allowed to leave. He turned away from the group toward the CBSA kennel and gave it the middle finger, then turned another way, still facing away from the group, and gave another building the middle finger.

One person in the parking lot told a supervisor. The incident was eventually escalated to CBSA national headquarters, which raised it with the CSC. Collison’s warden ordered an investigation and decided discipline was warranted. The report says she imposed the discipline because she considered giving the CBSA buildings the finger disrespectful. The dispute was summarized at the hearing as: “He gave the finger to two buildings.”

Adjudicator Christopher Rootham ruled that Collison’s conduct was “puerile” but “not worthy of discipline.” Rootham wrote that if Collison had directed his middle finger at anyone at the CBSA, he would have agreed with the CSC that the conduct was discreditable and warranted some discipline. But Collison gave the finger to two buildings. As Collison testified under cross-examination, buildings do not have opinions, and giving a building the finger differs from giving a person the finger. Rootham added that the actions did not challenge the employer’s authority; they showed Collison disliked the training facility and were a reaction to being needled about possibly having to stay.

The adjudicator also raised concerns about the investigation, saying it was clear that someone at the CBSA exaggerated Collison’s conduct, upsetting senior CBSA management, which passed that displeasure to the CSC. Rootham said the CSC decided to punish Collison to appease the CBSA, and appeasing another department is not a valid reason to discipline an employee. The warden had testified that she disciplined Collison because she wanted to ensure the CSC’s relationship with the CBSA was “not tarnished.”

Collison had argued that the discipline should be set aside because of procedural unfairness in the investigation. He said he was not told the allegations against him for six weeks before being informed that he was under investigation. Rootham said it should be obvious that an employee being investigated in a disciplinary matter is entitled to know what they are accused of before being interviewed about it. The adjudicator ruled that Collison should be reimbursed for one day’s pay, with interest.