Court rules officer was improperly disciplined for wearing a tie prohibited by new dress code; depressed employee felt it was part of his identity
Dress code flap over a tie
Some people balk at putting on a tie. However, a labour dispute between the Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) and one of its officers has put a twist on the issue of accommodation in dress codes.
In 2005, the CSC instituted a new dress code that replaced ties with black T-shirts under the uniform shirt. François Demers didn’t like the change after 28 years and continued to wear his tie with the new uniform. He was warned and later fined, and eventually he went on sick leave due to the pressure from his supervisors to lose the tie.
Psychiatric evaluations determined Demers suffered from depression and he depended on wearing a tie as part of his identity at work. However, CSC officials didn’t relent and he was declared unfit to work.
The board found CSC could have accommodated Demers without difficulty by allowing him to wear the tie and the discipline he received was unfair.
The case, while somewhat unusual, is another example of how employers must be open to accommodation, especially where it’s a matter that may be minor for the employer but can be significant for the employee.
The Canada Public Service Labour Relations Board has found a corrections officer was discriminated against when he was disciplined for not complying with his employer’s dress code.
François Demers, 51, was an officer at the Cowansville, Que., institution and had been employed with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) for 30 years. For the first 28 years with CSC, his uniform included a tie, which he said represented to him “the level of respect” he had from the inmates he supervised.
In 2003, the CSC informed its employees it would be changing the uniforms as of June 1, 2005. The new uniforms were designed with the union’s co-operation. Over the two-year period before implementation, all correctional officers received a copy of the dress code outlining the new uniforms in detail and explaining the disciplinary action for non-compliance. On the new everyday uniforms, the tie was replaced by a black T-shirt under the uniform shirt as ties often got in the way when searching washrooms. A tie would still be worn with the dress uniform.
There were some delays in manufacturing but most employees received their new uniforms by the fall of 2005. Demers received his uniform on Aug. 29, 2005, but continued to wear the old one as nobody was wearing the new one at the time.
On Oct. 28, 2005, Demers was told by his supervisor to wear his new uniform. He did so, but continued to wear a tie, despite being told several times to take it off. On Nov. 29, his supervisor warned him he would be subject to discipline if he continued to wear the tie. Demers indicated he was prepared to be disciplined in order to assert his rights. When he showed up with the tie on his next shift, things became difficult between him and his supervisor and Demers said he was unable to work because of the dispute. Things calmed down but on Dec. 5, Demers received a written reprimand and was told he would be penalized if he wore the tie again.
Between Nov. 15 and Dec. 4, several correctional officers wore ties to work and were told to remove them, which they eventually did without discipline. Later, some wore toques, scarves and sweaters. CSC accepted the toques were more convenient during searches but no justification was given for the other items. However, no discipline was given by CSC.
Fined $75 for wearing tie
On Dec. 8, Demers came to work wearing the tie. His supervisor ordered him to remove it, but he refused. He was given a $75 fine and Demers left work “visibly shaken and in tears.” He went to the hospital and was put on leave and submitted an industrial accident claim. His doctor diagnosed him with situational adjustment disorder and recommended a medical leave of three months. When CSC informed him he had used up his sick leave credits, Demers tried to return to work on Dec. 26 but was told he needed a doctor’s note stating he was fit to return.
In January 2006, Demers asked the CSC to reconsider allowing him to wear a tie at work, but he was told it was mandatory and he must comply. He underwent a psychiatric assessment that found him fit to return to work, but he was still troubled by CSC’s continued insistence to enforce a rule he didn’t understand. CSC asked Demers to return to work on March 15, 2006, but Demers said he would be on vacation then and would return after he was back. His supervisor told him he only had enough vacation credits for three days and he would need medical certification of more than that. He was also told he would have to come back without a tie or face disciplinary action. Demers didn’t return and said he became more stressed.
Employee diagnosed with depression
In a second psychiatric assessment on July 10, 2006, Demers was diagnosed with “severe major depression,” which was caused by a “disintegration of his self-image.” The doctor determined the depression led to a “psychotic fixation” on wearing a tie to work and without the tie he felt part of himself was taken away and he would “die on the spot.” The doctor went on to state Demers wouldn’t be able to return to work without wearing a tie. Demers’ supervisor called him on Oct. 6, 2006, and told him he had been found unfit to work. Demers became more stressed and had to go to the emergency room at the hospital. The board found Demers was provided with a description of the uniform and disciplinary penalties well in advance of the implementation of the dress code. However, it also found at the time Demers received the $75 fine, other officers were allowed to wear items not in the dress code such as toques and sweaters and therefore the dress code wasn’t being consistently enforced.
The board also found CSC didn’t consider the effect getting rid of the tie had on Demers and it was aware of the stress the situation was causing him both at work and in his personal life.
“The dress rule prohibiting ties was carried to extremes in the circumstances of this case,” the board said. “Being warned and having to publicly defend his reasons for not being able to work without a tie deeply humiliated (Demers) in front of his co-workers and supervisors.”
The board found CSC didn’t face any problems related to its operations or public image that would prevent it from carefully considering Demers’ concerns. Considering he wore the new uniform as stipulated except for the tie, it was a relatively small thing to deal with considering the psychological effect on Demers. It found the dress code was applied unreasonably to Demers and the fine wasn’t justified. It also determined his stress was increased and he was unable to work because CSC wouldn’t budge on allowing him to wear a tie, something which was clearly important to his identity as a corrections officer and had been for 28 years.
The board ordered a refund of the fine and awarded him the benefits he lost while on sick leave.
“CSC did not try to find a reasonable solution for Mr. Demers before imposing a penalty on him,” the board said. “Mr. Demers went on sick leave against his will as a direct result of the stress caused by CSC’s continued intransigence about the prohibition on wearing a tie.”
For more information see:
• Demers v. Canada (Deputy Head — Correctional Service), 2007 CarswellNat 2806 (Can. P.S.L.R.B.).
Psychiatric assessment of François Demers
The following is taken from the second psychiatric assessment of Demers undertaken on July 10, 2006 at the request of CSC:
“In my opinion, the current diagnosis is severe major depression.
“It must be understood that Mr. Demers is, in my view, trying desperately to protect himself psychologically from the emergence of a depression that would lead to a significant deterioration in his personality and the disintegration of his self-image. This is why I believe that he has developed a delusional psychotic fixation on wearing his tie. As he says himself, if his tie is taken away, this changes his entire character and he has the impression that he is going to die on the spot.
“To the extent that he can continue wearing the tie and believing that it is essential to him, he can thus prevent psychotic disintegration.”
“I believe that the condition is in fact progressive at this time. The more his employer confronts him with the idea of not wearing his tie, the more anxious he becomes, and his disintegration anxiety leads to the solidification and rigidity of the psychotic defense.
“In this context, I consider the prognosis very bad, and it is my view that Mr. Demers will be unable to return to his job if he is not allowed to wear his tie.”
Some people balk at putting on a tie. However, a labour dispute between the Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) and one of its officers has put a twist on the issue of accommodation in dress codes.
In 2005, the CSC instituted a new dress code that replaced ties with black T-shirts under the uniform shirt. François Demers didn’t like the change after 28 years and continued to wear his tie with the new uniform. He was warned and later fined, and eventually he went on sick leave due to the pressure from his supervisors to lose the tie.
Psychiatric evaluations determined Demers suffered from depression and he depended on wearing a tie as part of his identity at work. However, CSC officials didn’t relent and he was declared unfit to work.
The board found CSC could have accommodated Demers without difficulty by allowing him to wear the tie and the discipline he received was unfair.
The case, while somewhat unusual, is another example of how employers must be open to accommodation, especially where it’s a matter that may be minor for the employer but can be significant for the employee.
The Canada Public Service Labour Relations Board has found a corrections officer was discriminated against when he was disciplined for not complying with his employer’s dress code.
François Demers, 51, was an officer at the Cowansville, Que., institution and had been employed with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) for 30 years. For the first 28 years with CSC, his uniform included a tie, which he said represented to him “the level of respect” he had from the inmates he supervised.
In 2003, the CSC informed its employees it would be changing the uniforms as of June 1, 2005. The new uniforms were designed with the union’s co-operation. Over the two-year period before implementation, all correctional officers received a copy of the dress code outlining the new uniforms in detail and explaining the disciplinary action for non-compliance. On the new everyday uniforms, the tie was replaced by a black T-shirt under the uniform shirt as ties often got in the way when searching washrooms. A tie would still be worn with the dress uniform.
There were some delays in manufacturing but most employees received their new uniforms by the fall of 2005. Demers received his uniform on Aug. 29, 2005, but continued to wear the old one as nobody was wearing the new one at the time.
On Oct. 28, 2005, Demers was told by his supervisor to wear his new uniform. He did so, but continued to wear a tie, despite being told several times to take it off. On Nov. 29, his supervisor warned him he would be subject to discipline if he continued to wear the tie. Demers indicated he was prepared to be disciplined in order to assert his rights. When he showed up with the tie on his next shift, things became difficult between him and his supervisor and Demers said he was unable to work because of the dispute. Things calmed down but on Dec. 5, Demers received a written reprimand and was told he would be penalized if he wore the tie again.
Between Nov. 15 and Dec. 4, several correctional officers wore ties to work and were told to remove them, which they eventually did without discipline. Later, some wore toques, scarves and sweaters. CSC accepted the toques were more convenient during searches but no justification was given for the other items. However, no discipline was given by CSC.
Fined $75 for wearing tie
On Dec. 8, Demers came to work wearing the tie. His supervisor ordered him to remove it, but he refused. He was given a $75 fine and Demers left work “visibly shaken and in tears.” He went to the hospital and was put on leave and submitted an industrial accident claim. His doctor diagnosed him with situational adjustment disorder and recommended a medical leave of three months. When CSC informed him he had used up his sick leave credits, Demers tried to return to work on Dec. 26 but was told he needed a doctor’s note stating he was fit to return.
In January 2006, Demers asked the CSC to reconsider allowing him to wear a tie at work, but he was told it was mandatory and he must comply. He underwent a psychiatric assessment that found him fit to return to work, but he was still troubled by CSC’s continued insistence to enforce a rule he didn’t understand. CSC asked Demers to return to work on March 15, 2006, but Demers said he would be on vacation then and would return after he was back. His supervisor told him he only had enough vacation credits for three days and he would need medical certification of more than that. He was also told he would have to come back without a tie or face disciplinary action. Demers didn’t return and said he became more stressed.
Employee diagnosed with depression
In a second psychiatric assessment on July 10, 2006, Demers was diagnosed with “severe major depression,” which was caused by a “disintegration of his self-image.” The doctor determined the depression led to a “psychotic fixation” on wearing a tie to work and without the tie he felt part of himself was taken away and he would “die on the spot.” The doctor went on to state Demers wouldn’t be able to return to work without wearing a tie. Demers’ supervisor called him on Oct. 6, 2006, and told him he had been found unfit to work. Demers became more stressed and had to go to the emergency room at the hospital. The board found Demers was provided with a description of the uniform and disciplinary penalties well in advance of the implementation of the dress code. However, it also found at the time Demers received the $75 fine, other officers were allowed to wear items not in the dress code such as toques and sweaters and therefore the dress code wasn’t being consistently enforced.
The board also found CSC didn’t consider the effect getting rid of the tie had on Demers and it was aware of the stress the situation was causing him both at work and in his personal life.
“The dress rule prohibiting ties was carried to extremes in the circumstances of this case,” the board said. “Being warned and having to publicly defend his reasons for not being able to work without a tie deeply humiliated (Demers) in front of his co-workers and supervisors.”
The board found CSC didn’t face any problems related to its operations or public image that would prevent it from carefully considering Demers’ concerns. Considering he wore the new uniform as stipulated except for the tie, it was a relatively small thing to deal with considering the psychological effect on Demers. It found the dress code was applied unreasonably to Demers and the fine wasn’t justified. It also determined his stress was increased and he was unable to work because CSC wouldn’t budge on allowing him to wear a tie, something which was clearly important to his identity as a corrections officer and had been for 28 years.
The board ordered a refund of the fine and awarded him the benefits he lost while on sick leave.
“CSC did not try to find a reasonable solution for Mr. Demers before imposing a penalty on him,” the board said. “Mr. Demers went on sick leave against his will as a direct result of the stress caused by CSC’s continued intransigence about the prohibition on wearing a tie.”
For more information see:
• Demers v. Canada (Deputy Head — Correctional Service), 2007 CarswellNat 2806 (Can. P.S.L.R.B.).
Psychiatric assessment of François Demers
The following is taken from the second psychiatric assessment of Demers undertaken on July 10, 2006 at the request of CSC:
“In my opinion, the current diagnosis is severe major depression.
“It must be understood that Mr. Demers is, in my view, trying desperately to protect himself psychologically from the emergence of a depression that would lead to a significant deterioration in his personality and the disintegration of his self-image. This is why I believe that he has developed a delusional psychotic fixation on wearing his tie. As he says himself, if his tie is taken away, this changes his entire character and he has the impression that he is going to die on the spot.
“To the extent that he can continue wearing the tie and believing that it is essential to him, he can thus prevent psychotic disintegration.”
“I believe that the condition is in fact progressive at this time. The more his employer confronts him with the idea of not wearing his tie, the more anxious he becomes, and his disintegration anxiety leads to the solidification and rigidity of the psychotic defense.
“In this context, I consider the prognosis very bad, and it is my view that Mr. Demers will be unable to return to his job if he is not allowed to wear his tie.”
