The grievor was suspended five times, for 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20 days respectively, and he contested each suspension – in a sixth grievance, he also alleged that the deputy head had refused to allow him to return to work or to telework – the respondent challenged the jurisdiction of an adjudicator to hear the sixth grievance, arguing that it was not a disciplinary issue and that it did not have the support of the grievor’s bargaining agent – before the hearing, the grievor’s bargaining agent withdrew its support of his grievances – the grievor’s request for postponement was refused – the grievor was not present at the hearing, which proceeded without him – the respondent tabled a book of exhibits and asked that it be sealed – following the hearing, the parties were asked to address the issue in written submissions – the grievor was suspended for his behaviour on several occasions, which included failing to attend meetings or to submit a medical certificate, sending emails that did not respect the chain of command, failing to revise a travel claim, and speaking inappropriately to co-workers – the adjudicator held that the respondent had met its burden of proving that it was justified suspending the grievor for the increasing periods – the adjudicator held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the sixth grievance under paragraph 209(1)(b) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act – the adjudicator accepted the employer’s request to blackout certain portions of an exhibit given that important commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies were at stake – the adjudicator refused to reopen the hearing since the grievor had received notice and had decided not to appear.

Grievances dismissed, sealing order issued.