Aggravating factors included false claims they told supervisor, no occurrence reports
An arbitration ruling has upheld the termination of two Ontario correctional officers following their failure to protect an inmate from harassment and physical assault.
The two workers were correctional officers at the Algoma Remand and Treatment Centre (ARTC), a medium/maximum security prison in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. One was hired in July 2016 and the other in October 2016, and both had an employment record free from discipline.
The core duty of correctional officers is to protect the health and safety of inmates under their care and to be vigilant of any incidents involving inmates.
On Feb. 16, 2021, the police contacted the ARTC and advised that an inmate, referred to as JSA, had made a complaint about being assaulted by other inmates in the facility’s South Wing on Feb. 4. There were no occurrence reports filed and senior management was completely unaware of any incident. As a result, management interviewed JSA and reviewed surveillance videos of the South Wing from Feb. 4. In addition, several correctional officers who were on duty that day, including the two workers, were directed to provide occurrence reports for the incident.
The workers were on duty in the remand command module (RCM) and were tasked with monitoring inmates in the South and West Wing on Feb. 4. In the RCM, they were able to observe inmates through a glass wall. One of the officers was stationed at a touch screen monitor that controlled the unlocking of doors to the RCM. They were required to do a tour of each wing every 30 minutes.
The workers were aware that JSA had mental health issues and shouldn’t have been housed in the South Wing and he had been banging his cell door during the night, keeping other inmates awake and making them upset.
Violent incident
While the inmates were eating breakfast, JSA was sitting alone at a table. Several inmates approached him and verbally harassed him about the banging noises he had made in the night. One inmate threw a bottle at him, knocking his food tray to the floor. According to video footage, the workers didn’t see the bottle but heard the tray hit the floor. According to the workers, they thought JSA had dropped the tray and weren’t concerned.
However, another inmate approached JSA and hit him in the face. JSA went to his cell in the upper tier, but other inmates began throwing food at him. The workers later acknowledged they saw the food throwing, but chalked it up to inmates “blowing off steam.” They also said it wasn’t possible to enter the South Wing because a third correctional officer on duty had temporarily left the RCM.
A short time later, an inmate punched JSA in the stomach and another tried to hit him twice. The workers didn’t see this, as it occurred in a far corner where only JSA’s boots were visible on surveillance video. JSA then went to an intercom and told them he wanted to leave the South Wing.
One of the workers allowed JSA to enter a sally port between doors, but another inmate followed him. A second door that would allow the workers to escort JSA out of the sally port wouldn’t open because the software system was frozen and they weren’t allowed to open the door manually while the door to the wing was open.
The second inmate then attacked JSW in the sally port while the workers and the third correctional officer watched through the glass wall. They banged on the wall and yelled at the inmate to stop, and the inmate went back into the South Wing. By this time, the door software had reset and they were able to get JSA out of the sally port. Afterwards, the workers recognized in hindsight that they should have used the manual keys sooner and called for assistance because JSA’s life was in danger.
Investigation
The ministry investigated and the workers said they had a brief conversation with the sergeant on duty about the assault in the sally port, and the sergeant told them to keep her posted but they didn’t have to submit occurrence reports at that time. The sergeant denied being told about the incident and neither worker mentioned in their later occurrence reports that they had advised anyone of the assault.
The ministry found the workers had failed to intervene or report multiple instances of harassment and violence against JSA. During the investigation, review of video surveillance footage also revealed that the workers weren’t wearing masks and eye protection in the RCM and had cellphones, contrary to policy – the personal protective equipment (PPE) policy was put in place during the pandemic and the cellphone policy was to protect secure areas of the ARTC.
On April 26, the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General terminated the workers’ employment for failing to take appropriate action after witnessing inmate-on-inmate violence, failing to report the incident to their supervisor, not submitting occurrence reports, and not taking responsibility for the misconduct, leading the employer to conclude that it could no longer trust them to perform their core duties. The ministry also cited violations of the PPE and cellphone policies, although these infractions weren’t considered a primary factor in their termination. The third correctional officer in the RCM at the time was suspended for 20 days, as he wasn’t present for the entire incident and had made no false assertions about the sergeant or occurrence reports.
The union grieved the dismissals, arguing that it was excessive discipline. It claimed that the workers didn’t observe JSA being assaulted before he entered the sally port and they reported the assault in the sally port to the sergeant. The union also argued that many staff had breached the PPE and cellphone policies and this was condoned by the ministry, as discipline was rarely issued. In addition, dismissal was disproportionate since the third correctional officer was only suspended for essentially the same misconduct.
The ministry maintained that the workers had been negligent in their duties, stating that they failed to prevent the situation from escalating and didn’t ensure that the inmate received appropriate health care or the opportunity to file a complaint of assault. Furthermore, the employer emphasized the seriousness of their failure to report the incident.
Dishonesty in investigation
The employer also expressed concerns over the officers’ credibility, particularly after it was discovered that they falsely claimed to have informed their supervisor about the assault. The arbitrator ruled that their statements weren’t credible, especially given their failure to challenge the sergeant’s later assertion that she was unaware of any assaults and their failure to mention it when they were eventually asked to submit occurrence reports.
The arbitrator concluded that the workers failed in their duty to protect the inmate, particularly during an eight-minute period when the inmate was subjected to verbal and physical harassment by other inmates. Both officers were found to have witnessed key events, including food being thrown at the inmate and an assault in the sally port area. Despite this, they didn’t intervene or escalate the matter, the arbitrator said, noting that their inaction violated ministry policies and compromised the safety of the inmate.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, concluding that the ministry had just cause for their dismissal. The third correctional officer’s 20-day suspension was attributed to his lesser culpability, said the arbitrator.
See OPSEU and Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General) (Mangone), Re, 2024 CarswellOnt 13516.
