Federal public-sector staffer suspended one day for making 78 calls
This instalment of You Make the Call takes a look at a federal public-sector employee who was suspended for one day after making more than 75 personal long-distance phone calls at work.
Bruce Ennis, a Human Resources and Social Development (HRSD) employee, was given the one-day suspension for making long distance phone calls at work both during and after working hours.
An internal audit conducted by HRSD revealed that between Jan. 1, 2003, and Oct. 31, 2003, 180 long-distance calls were made from his workstation. Ennis identified 78 calls as being of a personal nature. The total time spent on these personal calls was 11 hours 45 minutes, of which eight-and-a-half hours were during his regularly scheduled hours of work.
At the first level of the grievance process, the employer partially allowed the grievance and revoked its decision to deduct 7.5 hours from his pay. The employer said this was done after it examined the treatment of others in the workplace, none of whom had pay deducted as a result of the use of making long-distance calls for personal matters.
The employer said there was no doubt the calls were made by Ennis. The sole issue was whether or not the discipline imposed was appropriate. Guy Cyr, the employer’s representative, said the employer took into account a number of factors in coming to its decision to impose a one-day suspension. These included the worker’s level of remorse, the amount of the long-distance charges ($24.19), the time lost to the employer during working hours and Ennis’s knowledge that his actions were inappropriate.
Cyr noted that during the period of the long-distance calls, Ennis did pay for a long-distance call that he made to his aunt. He submitted that this showed Ennis knew that he should be advising his employer of long-distance personal calls and reimbursing the employer for those calls.
Cécile La Bissonière, the worker’s representative, said the fact Ennis paid for one long-distance call during the period did not show that he was aware that making long-distance personal calls was inappropriate. It showed that he was not hiding the fact he made long-distance calls at work. Also, she submitted that if the employer felt it was wrong to make such calls, why did it not say something when he advised them of this call? La Bissonière also said the employer condoned the making of long-distance calls at work. She said no discipline should be imposed.
Cyr countered that the employer accepts the making of long-distance calls in exceptional circumstances and to that end the employer met with Ennis prior to imposing discipline to determine the nature of the calls he had made. Cyr said the calls were clearly not made for emergencies.
You make the call
Was the one-day paid suspension appropriate?
OR
Did the conduct merit no discipline?
If you said the one-day paid suspension was appropriate, you’re correct. The board said the use of employer facilities and services for personal use is not appropriate.
“While some usage of the telephone for personal business may have been condoned by the employer, the amount at issue here is an excessive amount and there is no evidence that the employer ever condoned such extensive use,” the board said. “I find that the employer considered mitigating factors such as the nature of the calls made, his remorse, the reimbursement of the costs of long-distance calls and the treatment of other employees, in coming to its determination of an appropriate discipline.”
For more information see:
• Ennis v. Canada (Treasury Board – Department of Human Resources & Skills Development), 2006 CarswellNat 1826 (Can. P.S.L.R.B.).
Bruce Ennis, a Human Resources and Social Development (HRSD) employee, was given the one-day suspension for making long distance phone calls at work both during and after working hours.
An internal audit conducted by HRSD revealed that between Jan. 1, 2003, and Oct. 31, 2003, 180 long-distance calls were made from his workstation. Ennis identified 78 calls as being of a personal nature. The total time spent on these personal calls was 11 hours 45 minutes, of which eight-and-a-half hours were during his regularly scheduled hours of work.
At the first level of the grievance process, the employer partially allowed the grievance and revoked its decision to deduct 7.5 hours from his pay. The employer said this was done after it examined the treatment of others in the workplace, none of whom had pay deducted as a result of the use of making long-distance calls for personal matters.
The employer said there was no doubt the calls were made by Ennis. The sole issue was whether or not the discipline imposed was appropriate. Guy Cyr, the employer’s representative, said the employer took into account a number of factors in coming to its decision to impose a one-day suspension. These included the worker’s level of remorse, the amount of the long-distance charges ($24.19), the time lost to the employer during working hours and Ennis’s knowledge that his actions were inappropriate.
Cyr noted that during the period of the long-distance calls, Ennis did pay for a long-distance call that he made to his aunt. He submitted that this showed Ennis knew that he should be advising his employer of long-distance personal calls and reimbursing the employer for those calls.
Cécile La Bissonière, the worker’s representative, said the fact Ennis paid for one long-distance call during the period did not show that he was aware that making long-distance personal calls was inappropriate. It showed that he was not hiding the fact he made long-distance calls at work. Also, she submitted that if the employer felt it was wrong to make such calls, why did it not say something when he advised them of this call? La Bissonière also said the employer condoned the making of long-distance calls at work. She said no discipline should be imposed.
Cyr countered that the employer accepts the making of long-distance calls in exceptional circumstances and to that end the employer met with Ennis prior to imposing discipline to determine the nature of the calls he had made. Cyr said the calls were clearly not made for emergencies.
You make the call
Was the one-day paid suspension appropriate?
OR
Did the conduct merit no discipline?
If you said the one-day paid suspension was appropriate, you’re correct. The board said the use of employer facilities and services for personal use is not appropriate.
“While some usage of the telephone for personal business may have been condoned by the employer, the amount at issue here is an excessive amount and there is no evidence that the employer ever condoned such extensive use,” the board said. “I find that the employer considered mitigating factors such as the nature of the calls made, his remorse, the reimbursement of the costs of long-distance calls and the treatment of other employees, in coming to its determination of an appropriate discipline.”
For more information see:
• Ennis v. Canada (Treasury Board – Department of Human Resources & Skills Development), 2006 CarswellNat 1826 (Can. P.S.L.R.B.).
