Once manager issued order, reading and signing assessment no longer optional: board
A one-day suspension for insubordination after a federal government worker failed to comply with two instructions to read and sign his Professional Development Assessment (PDA) was appropriate discipline, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board has ruled.
The worker was a defence scientist for Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), a department within the Department of National Defence. In the federal public service, research scientists are promoted when their work reaches certain levels along a continuum of professional development. They work with their managers to prepare a PDA that outlines their accomplishments over a certain period. The PDA is reviewed by a committee who decides whether to promote them, hold them at the same level, or take other action.
On Jan. 9, 2019, the DRDC section head emailed the worker’s five-year PDA to him with his signature. He asked the worker to read it and sign it, plus any comments if he wished. Once that was done, they could discuss the details. The PDA indicated that the worker’s state of professional development was unsatisfactory and recommended that his pay increment be held at its current level. When the worker saw the recommendation, he felt he didn’t need to read anything else and wouldn’t do anything until he met with the director of the centre where he worked.
However, the worker didn’t read or sign the PDA, or respond to the email. The section head sent the worker an invitation for a meeting on Jan. 15, which was later rescheduled to Jan. 22. The section head sent a follow-up email on Jan. 17, asking “Would you like to discuss your PDA before you sign (and, if you want, comment on) it?” The worker didn’t respond to this email, either.
The section head met with the worker on Jan. 18 to discuss the worker’s mid-year performance review that had been prepared the previous November. There was no discussion of the PDA, as it wasn’t in the scope of this meeting.
PDA review after unsatisfactory performance
Two days later, the section head emailed the worker stating that his PDA would have to be sent for review within a few days, so if the worker didn’t sign, it would say that he was given the opportunity to sign and comment and declined. According to the worker, he didn’t respond because he felt the email was “rude and inappropriate” because the section head knew by then that the worker wasn’t going to sign the PDA.
On Jan. 22, the worker met with the director to discuss the PDA, but the worker acknowledged that he hadn’t read it. The director encouraged him to read it, add his comments, and sign it.
On Jan. 23, the section head emailed the worker again to say that “Before you do anything else today, I need you to read and sign your revised PDA.” The revision involved changing the worker’s rating from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory” with some changed wording. The section head said that he would discuss the changes with the worker after he signed it.
The section head then went to the worker’s building and handed him a copy of the PDA. He instructed the worker to spend the next 1.5 hours reading it and then they would discuss it.
However, 1.5 hours later, the worker still hadn’t read the PDA, explaining that he didn’t have time to read it because he had too much other work to do. The section head gave him until the end of the day – another three hours – to read and sign the PDA. However, the worker still didn’t do it.
Suspension for insubordination
The PDA was submitted for review without the worker’s signature or comments. In the meantime, the director conducted a disciplinary meeting with the worker and imposed a three-day suspension for insubordination. The suspension was later reduced to one day because an earlier instance of discipline had been reduced from a one-day suspension to a reprimand.
The worker grieved the suspension, arguing that he wasn’t warned that he could be disciplined for refusing to follow the order to read and sign the PDA. He also argued that employees weren’t required to sign their PDAs and he wasn’t given enough time to read it.
The board noted that an employer has to establish insubordination by proving that it gave the employee a clear order, a person in authority gave the order, and the worker didn’t comply with the order.
The board found that, when the worker was given an initial instruction to read and sign the PDA, there wasn’t a specified deadline. While the worker didn’t sign the document, he took steps to arrange meetings with senior management to discuss his concerns, which wasn’t a refusal of the initial instruction, said the board.
However, on Jan. 23, 2019, the worker received a second, explicit instruction from the section head to read and sign the PDA by the end of the day. The worker failed to comply, which was insubordinate, the board said.
Authority to issue instruction
The board also found that the worker wasn’t entitled to a warning about the potential for discipline, as warnings are only relevant when determining the severity of a penalty, not in the initial issuance of the directive. It also ruled that the section head, as the worker’s manager, had the authority to issue the instruction.
In addition, the board disagreed with the worker’s reasons for not reading and signing the PDA, as it was no longer an option to decline once his direct manager gave him an order to do so and the two weeks from his initial receipt of the PDA was adequate time to comply with the directive. The worker wasn’t disciplined for not signing the PDA, he was disciplined for not following his superior’s order to sign it, said the board, noting that PDAs clearly state that signing it doesn’t imply any agreement with the entire document.
The board further considered the worker’s conduct during the disciplinary process, noting that he had been dishonest by initially claiming not to remember a meeting with the section head on Jan. 23, 2019, despite later admitting to it. This dishonesty was viewed as an aggravating factor in the determination of the disciplinary measure.
While the board acknowledged that the worker’s refusal to sign the PDA had no tangible impact on the employer, it concluded that a one-day suspension was appropriate to reinforce the importance of following managerial instructions. The decision also noted the worker’s refusal to acknowledge the need to comply with instructions going forward as a factor supporting the suspension.
The grievance was dismissed and the suspension was upheld. See Martens v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence), 2024 FPSLREB 86.
