HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2459.Bedford.88-07-13EMPLOYt% 0El.A COURONNE
CROWNEMPLOYEES oE“oNT*RIO
GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
?D DES GRIEFS
Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearing:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEU (Bedford)
and
Grievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Employer
P. Draper Vice Chairman
L. Robbins Member
M. O'Toole Member
P. Cavalluzzo
C0UXel ~. . Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers and Solicitors
K. Raymond
COUl-6~1
Legal Services Branch
Ministry of Health
June 7, 1988
The Grievor, Herb Bedford, has been employed for twelve years as an
assistant shift engineer in the power plant at the Whitby Psychiatric
Hospital. He grieves that he has been disciplined without just cause.
Fred Parker, the assistant chief engineer at the hospital testified that
shortly after he came on duty at 8:OO a.m. on December 10, 1987, the
Grievor, who was working the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, reported to
him that he had had to open the steam supply valve to the hospitar
laundry, which should have been done before the end of the night shift.
The.Grievor said he thought the two night shift engineers were to blame
and should be disciplined and became angry when Parker did not treat it
as a serious matter. Parker’s testimony is that the Grievor referred to
the two men concerned as Parker’s “fucking drinking buddies”. The
Grievor testified that he said “drinking buddies”. It is Parker’s
testimony that the Grievor then called him a “fucking asshole”. The
Grievor teitified that those were his words. The Grievor complied with
Parker’s order ‘to accompany him to the office of Alex Hay, the chief
engineer,*but left almost immediately giving as his rea~son that there w&s
no union representative-present. Hay tesrlfied that after the Grievor
left his office Parker told him what had oc~curred between himself and the
Grievor. Subsequently a disciplinary hearing was held and the Grievor
was given a three-day suspension without pay. Hay further testified that
the Grievor commonly uses abusive or profane Ianguage on the job. He was
given a written reprimand for using such language towards Hay in May,
1985. Since then he has made efforts to curb his habit.
The Grievor acted properly in reporting to Parker that the steam valve
had not been opened. But.whether or not someone should or would be
disciplined as a result of that oversight was simply not his business and
his assumption that Parker would do nothing about it,because the two men
were his friends wa$ insulting and completely unfounded. As well, the
-evidence satisfies us that it was the Grievor’s resentment of Parker’s
seeming indifference to his report that led to the name-calling incident.
Notwithstanding the reality that the vocabulary of the work-place is not
always civil, grossly abusive language addressed to a superior does not
thereby become permissible. The Grievor is burly, rough-spoken and
admittedly quick to anger. He obviously feels no regret for his
,t
, ‘behaviour and believes that he should not be disciplined for it. Our
N view is that he is deserving of discipline and that the penalty should be
in some degree more severe than that imposed for the earlier similar
incident.
If the name-calling incident had taken place in the presence of other
employees we would not have disturbed the penalty imposed by the
Employer. In that context the damage done to Parker’s authority would
have warranted that penalty. As it is, although the Grievor expressed
his personal opinion of Parker in the coarsest terms there was no further
verbal assault, no physical threat and no direct defiance or rejection of
authority.
We have concluded that in the particular circumstances present here the
appropriate penalty is a one-day suspension without pay. That penalty,
we believe, will convince the Grievor that failure to control offensive
behaviour brings progressively more severe disciplinary responses, and
wili confirm to the Employer that abusive conduct towards supervisory
staff is not condoned by the Board.
The Employer will restore two days’ pay to the Grievor.and will amend his
disciplinary record so as to conform to this decision.
We retain jurisdiction in order to resolve any difficulty that may arise
in the implementation of this decision.
Dated at Consecon, Ontario this 13th day of July , 1988.
P. Draper - Vice-Cdeirman
L. Robbins - Member
7h7 3 Ix.zrd* . .
. O’Toole - Member