Hébert v. Parks Canada Agency, 2026 FPSLREB 86 shows that serious misconduct does not end the proportionality analysis. An employer can establish that discipline was warranted and still lose on the question of whether termination was the appropriate penalty.
The grievor was a Parks Canada maintenance employee with more than 40 years of service. He was accused of eight incidents of persistent unwanted conduct toward a younger colleague on the cleaning crew. The adjudicator found that misconduct had occurred, including repeated unwanted attention, getting too close to the colleague and continuing to seek her out after she had made clear the attention was unwelcome.
Parks Canada terminated his employment. The adjudicator agreed that significant discipline was justified but found discharge excessive. The investigation had weaknesses that mattered to the assessment. The investigator had a personal relationship with the colleague, interviews followed a templated format without meaningful follow up, and the maintenance crew had not received sufficiently clear warnings about the conduct expected of them. Comparative discipline imposed on other employees also formed part of the proportionality analysis.
The Board substituted a 30 day unpaid suspension. It also rejected the grievor's allegation that the harsher penalty was connected to his age. He was 75, but the evidence did not establish that age influenced the employer's decision.
Reinstatement was a separate question. After the termination, the grievor continued appearing near the colleague and engaging in conduct that led to further concern and police involvement. The adjudicator concluded the employment relationship could not realistically be repaired. Rather than reinstate him, the Board awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement together with back pay for the portion of the dismissal that exceeded the proper suspension.
The case matters because workplace investigations and disciplinary decisions remain connected. Proven misconduct does not cure weaknesses in an investigation or remove the obligation to assess proportionality. Employers should be able to explain why the selected penalty fits the conduct, the employee's record, comparable cases and the quality of the process used to establish what happened.
It also shows that setting aside a discharge does not automatically mean the employee returns to work. Where later conduct demonstrates that trust or workplace safety cannot be restored, an adjudicator can substitute another remedy even after finding the original dismissal excessive.