Self-Representation 101: Discipline Framework and Process (Part 3)
From Verbal Warnings to Dismissal: Understanding Progressive Discipline and Discipline Framework
In this article, we begin unpacking one of the most common ways members face workplace discipline: being punished for not complying with an employer's instruction—especially when such instructions conflict with one’s religious beliefs, conscience, or health knowledge.
There are two primary mechanisms the employer can use to impose disciplinary action:
Individual-Based Discipline – A manager instructs the employee directly to do or not do something. If the employee refuses—on moral, spiritual, or medical grounds—they may face discipline. Example: being told not to speak about vaccine side effects in public or on blogs, and continuing to do so because you believe silence endangers others and yourself.
Group-Based Mandates – A policy is imposed on all employees, such as a vaccination requirement. Although written policies may state that exemptions are available, they are rarely granted in practice. The 2021–2022 COVID-19 mandate is a well-known example of this.
In this article, we focus on the individual-based case. While the example used is fictional, it is based on real stories shared by multiple members who have experienced similar discipline situations. Their identities are protected to ensure confidentiality and avoid retaliation, but their testimonials help us present a realistic picture of how these cases unfold.
The Progressive Discipline Process: Step by Step
Let’s say your manager instructs you not to discuss politics or health-related topics (like vaccines) in public—even outside work. You believe that obeying this instruction would violate your conscience, your need to protect your health, or your duty to inform your community. You continue writing or speaking. Here’s what happens next.
Note: the guidance provided below was not obtained from your union ERO (who unfortunately often seem more focused on discouraging members from grieving than assisting them in defending their rights), but rather gathered from fellow members who have been through similar situations, from supportive colleagues, sometimes even from their managers themselves who are signing the letters.
Phase 1: The Pre-Disciplinary Meeting
You will receive an email invitation for a pre-disciplinary (pre-disc) meeting. This meeting is your opportunity to explain your position and present any mitigating factors.
At the pre-disc meeting, you should ask:
How is this instruction related to your actual job duties—and more importantly, how does it relate to your department’s official mandate? Any instruction issued by an employer must be reasonably and clearly connected to the organization’s operational mandate.
What training is available to help you comply , e.g., from Office of Values and Ethics (OVE) or Canadian School of Public Service? You have the right to fully understand what the employer believes you did wrong. If you don’t clearly understand the nature of the instruction or what specific behaviour violated it, you cannot be justly punished. Training or clarification is essential also as a prerequisite for fairness under the principles of natural justice. Can the meeting be delayed until you complete such training?
Can the meeting be rescheduled to ensure that you can find a person who will accompany you? You have a right to bring someone to all such meetings. In normal circumstances this would be your Union Employment Relationship Officer (ERO). However, when they are not willing to support your grievance, you can bring someone else who can support you psychologically and para-legally. Such person is called a McKenzie friend, and I know several who would gladly do that for you, at no cost.
Which section of the discipline framework applies to your alleged misconduct? There should be transparency on all such decisions, which are normally based on established practices documented in a disciplinary framework. Such a framework should exist in every department, and you have the right to request and review it.
Remember that you have a right to request supporting documents and time to prepare. Take detailed notes and ask that everything be documented.
Phase 2: The Disciplinary Decision
Based on your response and their internal consultation, the manager will assign a disciplinary measure. Most often, for a first offense, this will be a 1-day suspension without pay. This alone is often enough to enforce compliance and keep employees silent.
However, if you repeat the action, discipline intensifies:
Second offense: 1-week suspension
Third offense: 2 weeks
Fourth offense: 4 weeks
Fifth: dismissal
This pattern is based on progressive discipline principles outlined in official guidelines by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) and in the disciplinary framework established by your department. See Appendices A and B for more detail.
What To Do After a Suspension: Start the Grievance
If you receive a disciplinary letter, you must act promptly to file a grievance.
Steps to Take:
Ask the union for help completing the grievance form, even if they’ve previously said they won’t support your case. Document their response or refusal.
File the grievance to formally state that the discipline is unjust, even without union backing.
Keep thorough records—including the disciplinary letter, your written responses, any related correspondence, and notes from meetings.
Even if the union declines to represent you, you can still follow the grievance process independently—and then later you may also file a Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) complaint.
Key Deadlines:
Grievance submission deadline: Usually within 25 working days of receiving the disciplinary decision. Always check your collective agreement for the exact timeframe. You can also consult the TBS Grievance Guide.
DFR complaint deadline: Within 90 calendar days of the union’s refusal to support you. For forms and instructions, visit the FPSLREB site.
Grievance transfer to next level: 10 business days of receiving the response at previous level
You Are Not Alone: Understanding the McKenzie Friend Concept
In the next article, we’ll publish anonymized examples of real pre-disciplinary letters, disciplinary decisions, and complete grievance forms. These will help guide you through the paperwork and tone to use.
Remember, you do not need to go through this alone. And as always, you have the right to bring someone you trust—even a non-union support person—to these meetings. That person could be a McKenzie Friend, a colleague, or someone like me who understands what you're going through.
Definition:
A McKenzie Friend is someone who can provide support in a hearing or meeting, including taking notes, offering quiet advice, and assisting with paperwork. While they cannot speak on your behalf, their presence is legally recognized under Canadian administrative law. For more information, refer to: British Columbia’s Tribunal Guide on McKenzie Friends (Applicable in most provinces & federal tribunals)
https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/publications/faqs/mckenzie-friends.htm
"A McKenzie Friend is not an agent, but a support person. They can sit beside you, help you organize papers, take notes, and provide quiet advice—but they cannot address the tribunal."
We are here to help you walk through this together. That is what this series is about.
Acknowledgment
Article is written with assistance from ChatGPT using the prompt: "Self-Representation 101: Discipline Framework and Process (Part 3)..." and based on anonymized real-life member testimonials collected through direct communications.
Disclaimer
This article’s opinions are those of the author and do not reflect any institution. It is not legal or medical advice.
Support This Work & Stay Connected
If this article helped you or someone you know, please help raise awareness:
Share with your colleagues and professional networks
Mention it in grievance meetings or training sessions
Follow me for future articles and support updates:
🔹 LinkedIn
🔹 Facebook
🔹 Twitter/X
🔹 YouTube @Dr.Dmitry.Gorodnichy
Appendix A: Progressive Discipline – Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) Guidance
The concept of progressive discipline is a core principle of federal workplace management and is outlined in the TBS Guidelines for Discipline and reinforced in departmental frameworks.
According to TBS and the Public Service Labour Relations Board:
Discipline must be corrective, not punitive. It aims to encourage acceptable behaviour, give employees a chance to improve, and ensure fair and consistent treatment.
Core Principles of Progressive Discipline
Start with the least severe action appropriate to the misconduct.
Escalate discipline only if the behaviour continues or is repeated.
Tailor each decision to the specific circumstances, considering mitigating and aggravating factors.
Discipline must be proportional to the severity and impact of the incident.
Typical progression (for repeat or escalating misconduct):
Verbal or written reprimand
Short suspension without pay (e.g. 1–5 days)
Longer suspension (e.g. 10–20 days)
Termination (as a last resort)
Source:
[CBSA Disciplinary Measures Framework (2018), Internal Reference]
Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Decisions
Why This Matters
When a member is punished with a one-week or longer suspension for speaking about their medical concerns, religious beliefs, or political views—even without violence, harm, or disobedience of core duties—it raises the question: Is the principle of progressive discipline still being respected?
Discipline must be fair, proportionate, and grounded in actual misconduct—not in the suppression of expression or conscience. This appendix helps you identify if your case violates the principles of fairness and proportionality upheld by federal policies.
Appendix B: Understanding Discipline Frameworks
Each federal agency or department should have its own Disciplinary Framework, which outlines how discipline is applied, and what range of penalties may result from different types of misconduct. You are encouraged to ask your manager or contact your department’s Office of Values and Ethics (OVE) to request a copy.
The examples from the CBSA Disciplinary Measures Framework (2018) are shared below for illustration only. They are for internal use specific to CBSA and should not be interpreted as binding policy in other departments. However, they provide an idea of how disciplinary categories and penalties are structured.
Knowing the framework your department uses will help you prepare more effectively for any pre-disciplinary meeting. It will clarify how your case may be classified, and what disciplinary range your employer may cite—potentially comparing your speech or silence to infractions like misuse of equipment, security breaches, or negligence.
This appendix is included to help members contextualize the challenge they face—and highlight the disproportionate response that some conscience-based actions receive compared to more tangible or harmful offenses..
Examples of What Typically Earns 1–2 Weeks Suspension
Negligent discharge of defensive equipment (e.g. firearm used inappropriately during horseplay) – 5–15 days suspension
Unauthorized public comments about CBSA operations (e.g. blog post criticizing CBSA mandate) – 5–20 days suspension
Failure to report a traffic violation in a government vehicle – 5–15 days suspension
Deliberate misuse of IT systems or breach of confidential information – 0–20 days
Insubordination or refusal to follow instructions – depending on recurrence
These offenses often involve material breaches of trust, safety, or federal law—sometimes including fraud, unauthorized access to sensitive systems, or misuse of government property.
Important Observation:
Members who peacefully express concerns online about health-related mandates or refuse instructions they believe violate their conscience, religious belief, or medical autonomy (e.g., being told not to speak publicly about vaccines) are being punished at similar or harsher levels—1 to 4 weeks of suspension without pay, then dismissal.
This creates a troubling contrast. While someone misusing a government credit card or hiding an incident may receive a suspension, a member standing up for basic human dignity can face equal or greater discipline.
It echoes an ancient moral dilemma—like Barabbas versus Jesus: Barabbas, a known criminal, was set free; Jesus, who spoke truth to power, was punished. Here too, it's not always the wrongdoers who are punished most harshly—it’s those who speak up.
The examples provided above serve to contextualize the severity of punishments than can be handed to members under conscience-based refusals.
They also underscore the role of the union—not just in defending contractual breaches, but in standing beside members who act from conscience. Unfortunately, as we've seen, the union often declines to support these members. In doing so, it aligns not with those who speak truth like Jesus, but with those more like Barabbas—prioritizing those who break rules over those who break silence for the sake of truth.
Yet, it is exactly those “Jesus-like” members—who act out of principle, not convenience—who need support the most. They are the ones punished not for harming others, but for refusing to harm themselves or their integrity. That is what this series hopes to address.
Appendix C: Timelines and Conditions for Submitting Grievances and Transfering them to Next Level.
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/agreements-conventions/view-visualiser-eng.aspx?id=18
35.13 A grievor may present a grievance at each succeeding step in the grievance procedure beyond the first step either:
1. where the decision or settlement is not satisfactory to the grievor, within ten (10) days after that decision or settlement has been conveyed in writing to the grievor by the Employer,
or2. where the Employer has not conveyed a decision to the grievor within the time prescribed in clause 35.14, within fifteen (15) days after presentation by the grievor of the grievance at the previous step.
35.14 The Employer shall normally reply to a grievance at any step of the grievance procedure, except the final step, within ten (10) days after the grievance is presented