A large nuclear power plant's Code of Employee Conduct stated that its computer drives were for business use only and any inappropriate use (e.g., the making of offensive, suggestive, or lewd comments) was unacceptable. It also stated that company email should not be used to "display, generate, or pass on to others material (whether in text, picture, or any other form) which may be regarded as offensive on the basis of race, sex, disability, or any other grounds." The Code was redistributed each year and reinforced through online quizzes and presentations.

Prompted by an employee complaint, the employer initiated an investigation into its email system and discovered that 67 out of 90 supervisory staff in one department had sent inappropriate emails, as defined under the Code. The HR and IT departments decided to review the questionable emails and rate each of the 67 employees according to the number and seriousness of the emails distributed. There was a sliding scale: at the high end, those with 20 or more of the most explicit emails received a 12-day suspension, while at the low end, those with fewer than 5, less explicit emails received job counselling.

Several employees grieved their suspension, arguing that they should have received a warning instead. They based their argument on several factors:

they did not realize the seriousness of the offence;

they had apologized; and

because the practice was common, there was a permissive culture in the workplace that led them to act in a way they otherwise would not have.

In your opinion, were the suspensions warranted?