What is the impact of an employee's acknowledgement of culpability or some responsibility for their actions in the context of mitigation of a discipline imposed by the CCRA?

The recognition of culpability or some responsibility for his or her actions is a critical factor in assessing the appropriateness of the discipline. This is because the rehabilitative potential of the grievor is built on a foundation of trust, and trust starts with the truth. If a grievor has misled his employer, failed to cooperate with the legitimate investigation of allegations of conflict of interest, and refuses to admit any responsibility in the face of evidence showing wrongdoing, then re-establishing the trust necessary for an employment relationship is impossible. The principle that an employee is not required to provide an explanation to his employer or acknowledge any wrongdoing is not one that is enshrined in the collective bargaining regime. That principle is one that is enshrined in our criminal law. The collective bargaining regime has developed from employment law, which historically has upheld, and continues to uphold, the employer's right of entitlement to good faith from its employees. Accordingly, the approach is very different. Whether an employee has been candid with the employer, acknowledged the inappropriateness of the conduct in question, apologized and demonstrated remorse and a willingness to correct the behaviour or refrain from it in the future, are primary considerations in addressing the issue of mitigation of the discipline imposed. Naidu v. CCRA, 2001 PSSRB 124