An arbitrator has upheld a three-day suspension for a municipal equipment operator who called three councillors “uneducated” and said they should be removed from office in an email sent during work hours.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Local 12.1, had filed a grievance on behalf of the worker, who had about 18 years of service with the Corporation of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The worker was disciplined after sending emails to three municipal councillors criticizing their decision to eliminate dust suppression on rural gravel roads.
On Nov. 28, 2024, the day after council voted to cut the brine solution program from the 2025 budget, the worker sent emails to councillors Trevor Thompson, Ryan Doyle and Anthony Ceccacci. In the email, the worker wrote: “You do realize you represent people on gravel roads??!! Brine does more than keep the dust down, it helps roads set up properly. How can someone so uneducated on the subject vote to remove it!!??? You three in south kent need to be removed Stop supporting the City!”
The email was sent at 2:35 p.m., 25 minutes before the end of the worker’s 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, using his personal email account.
Code of conduct violations
The municipality’s director of public works determined the worker had violated the employer’s code of conduct by failing to maintain civility and professionalism, engaging in political activity during work hours, and potentially damaging the municipality’s reputation. The worker was employed in the infrastructure and engineering services department, which was responsible for the road work he was criticizing.
At a Dec. 2, 2024 meeting, the worker admitted to authoring the emails and acknowledged he “screwed up” and “could have worded that better.” However, he maintained he was acting as a concerned citizen and suggested coaching or a refresher on the code of conduct would have been sufficient discipline.
The municipality issued a three-day unpaid suspension to be served Dec. 3, 4 and 5, 2024.
Union arguments rejected
The union argued the discipline was excessive, citing the worker’s 18-year clean disciplinary record, his forthrightness in admitting responsibility, and the fact that the communication was private and did not identify him as a municipal employee. The union also contended the employer failed to follow progressive discipline and that the worker was legitimately expressing concerns as a private citizen.
However, the arbitrator found the worker’s communications were “intemperate, and neither appropriate, nor civil, discourse.” The arbitrator noted the emails constituted “a direct, personal attack on their fitness to continue in their elected office” and created a rural-urban divide with the closing comment “Stop supporting the City.”
The arbitrator determined the worker had clearly violated three aspects of the code of conduct: the core value of respect and civility, the requirement to separate personal political activities from official positions, and the prohibition against engaging in political activities during work hours.
Freedom of expression balanced against public service duties
Drawing on Supreme Court of Canada precedent from Fraser v. Canada, the arbitrator acknowledged that public servants’ freedom of expression must be balanced against the need for an impartial and effective public service. The arbitrator found that while the worker was entitled to express his views on municipal policies, he crossed the line by doing so in uncivil terms during working hours.
“Had the grievor made his point without the incivility and on his own time, his actions would have been better sheltered,” the arbitrator noted.
The arbitrator was particularly critical of the worker’s characterization of the councillors as “uneducated,” calling it “particularly pejorative” because it constituted “an allegation that the Counsellors are unfit to exercise their office.”
Lack of genuine remorse
The arbitrator also found the worker’s will-say statement demonstrated a lack of genuine understanding of the seriousness of his actions. Rather than showing remorse, the worker claimed vindication by suggesting one councillor’s reply was “sarcastic” but agreed with his assessment, and portrayed himself as having “de-escalated” the situation by not responding to the councillors’ replies.
“He does not actually accept that what he did was inappropriate. He defends himself by blaming the victims of his attacks,” the arbitrator found.
The arbitrator concluded that modifying the penalty would not provide the necessary deterrent effect and noted that in similar cases involving the balance between freedom of speech and public service duties, suspensions of three days or more were common.
The arbitrator rejected arguments that the worker’s long service record and clean disciplinary history warranted a reduction in penalty, noting that as a senior municipal employee, “he should have known better” than to call for the resignation of municipal councillors while on duty.
Progressive discipline not required
The arbitrator also dismissed the union’s argument that progressive discipline should have been applied, finding that the situation did not call for such an approach given the clear policy violations and the worker’s position within the department responsible for the very work he was criticizing.
The grievance was denied in its entirety.
For more information, see Corporation of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 12.1, 2025 CanLII 88333 (ON LA).
