Officer pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife; worked with youth and convicts with assault convictions
This instalment of You Make the Call features a correctional officer who was convicted of assaulting his wife.
The correctional officer worked for the North Slave Correctional Centre (NSCC) and also served as a relief youth officer in the North Slave Young Offenders Facility. Both facilities were located in Yellowknife, N.W.T. and the officer had been employed with the NSCC since 2003 with a clean disciplinary record.
On March 9, 2009, the officer was arrested and charged with assaulting his wife. He spent three days in jail and his trial was scheduled for the following month. The NSCC suspended the officer with pay and began an internal investigation. The officer indicated his lawyer advised him not to answer questions due to the impending trial. The investigation continued and it was determined a serious incident had occurred, but the officer was allowed to return to work until his criminal trial was completed, though his interaction with inmates was limited and other officers showed some concern over the charges, particularly those who knew his wife. On one occasion, an inmate learned of the charges and challenged the officer about them.
On April 28, 2009, the officer pleaded guilty to assault and admitted he punched his wife in the back of the head at home while he was intoxicated. He received a conditional discharge and was placed on probation for 12 months, during which he was required to take counselling and banned from consuming alcohol.
The officer provided proof of family and substance abuse counselling, but his employment was terminated on June 6, 2009. The dismissal letter stated that his actions were “incompatible with your continued employment supervising and assisting adult inmates and young offenders in their efforts to make positive changes to their behaviour.” The employer also saw the officer’s conduct as contrary to its code of ethics, which demanded a “high standard of ethical conduct” for correctional officers. The officer’s conviction was also of concern because assault was a serious problem in northern Canada and many of the inmates were incarcerated for that crime. As a result, the department of justice had a zero tolerance policy for family violence.
You Make the Call
Did the officer’s assault conviction warrant dismissal?
OR
Was lesser discipline more appropriate?
If you said the officer’s misconduct warranted lesser discipline, you’re right. The arbitrator agreed the officer’s actions were contrary to the standard of conduct expected of a correctional officer. The fact he was charged and convicted of domestic assault was “particularly troublesome” because of its high incidence in the region.
However, the arbitrator also felt there were enough mitigating factors to determine dismissal was too harsh a penalty. The arbitrator found the assault was an isolated event, the officer had no prior criminal record nor any previous discipline. It was also evident the officer accepted responsibility by pleading guilty, acknowledging his wrongdoing and taking counselling to address family issues and substance abuse.
The arbitrator found there was little evidence to indicate problems with other officers or inmates. Though some co-workers may have made negative comments, none filed formal complaints and the officer worked for three weeks without incident between his suspension and his trial. The same could be said regarding inmates, as the arbitrator felt he could handle the situation effectively, as he did on the one occasion after his return.
The arbitrator also felt zero tolerance for family violence did not automatically mean dismissal. In fact, the code of ethics indicated a major infraction would be punished by a reprimand or suspension and only repeated infractions would lead to dismissal.
