Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWilliams 13-04-05IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, LOCAL 245 -AND- SHERIDAN COLLEGE Grievance of April Williams (#2011-0245-0005) Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair Pamela Munt-Madill, Union Nominee Ann E. Burke, Employer Nominee Appearances: Val Patrick, Jay Jackson, and April Williams for the union Brenda Bowlby, Megan Mascarin and Rebecca Sprague for the employer Hearing held at Oakville on December 13, 2011; January 8, 14, 16 and 22, 2013 Award released at Georgetown on April 5, 2013 -1- AWARD OF THE MAJORITY 1. The Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union has filed a grievance complaining about the 5 day suspension given by Sheridan College to April Williams. The College asserts that Ms. Williams upset and embarrassed a student, acted outside her job description, and criticized a program taught in another department, undermining the reputation of the department and the College. The College further maintains that Ms. Williams was not honest and candid when these allegations were brought to her attention. The College assessed a 5 day suspension on the basis that Ms. Williams had been given a 3 day suspension 7 months before for what it considered similar misconduct. 2. The union denies that Ms. Williams has engaged in any misconduct and asserts that the employer has blown out of all proportion the grievor’s routine exchange with a student. In the alternative, the union submitted that if we found any misconduct, the penalty was disproportionate to the wrongdoing that the employer has proven. Background Facts 3. Ms. Williams works as a Field Placement Officer in the Paralegal Program in the Faculty of Business. She is the only incumbent in the position. She is generally responsible for finding and retaining quality unpaid placements for Paralegal students, who must complete a 14 week field placement in order to graduate. Ms. Williams seeks new placements and maintains a good relationship with existing locations so that she can provide good experiences for the students. Other colleges are also looking for quality placements and so maintaining and expanding placement opportunities is very important. Ms. Williams also has to be mindful of the practice areas in which the Law Society of Upper Canada permits paralegals to work because the field placements must also fall into acceptable areas of practice and the Law Society monitors reports of work that students perform in their placements. Ms. Williams also testified that students see placements as a way to get a “foot in the door” at an organization, with the hope of employment after graduation. The investigation of the incident that led to discipline 4. On December 16 2010, Ms. Williams’ manager, Charlene Craddock, received a forwarded e-mail. It related that a student had conveyed a negative view of the Office Administrative Program, based on her conversation with another student, who conveyed that the source of the negative view was Ms. Williams. The employer decided to investigate. 5. Although the e-mail that started the employer’s investigation was entered into evidence, we rely on it only for the purpose of establishing what led the employer to focus on Ms. Williams. The contents of the e-mail, setting out what Ms. Williams allegedly said and did is, on our count, fourth hand hearsay. It is a recounting of what a professor told an associate dean. The professor relied on a student’s account. That student relied, in turn, on what another student who talked to Ms. Williams conveyed. For obvious reasons, the content of the e-mail does not have the hallmarks of reliability that -2- would contribute to our understanding of what happened in Ms. Williams’ exchange with the student, and more important, whether Ms. Williams engaged in culpable conduct. 6. The College investigated by interviewing the student, who we will call AB to protect her privacy. The College interviewed Patricia Knight, a professor in the Paralegal program who was involved in one aspect of the incident. The College also questioned Ms. Williams on two occasions. The investigation was conducted by Rebecca Sprague, Human Resources Portfolio Manager, and Ms. Craddock. The union took no issue with the investigation, nor should it. The College contacted the relevant people in a timely way, prepared appropriate questions and took careful notes of the answers. Ms. Sprague prepared a chart setting out the College’s analysis of the answers it received from the three people it interviewed to assist it in making a decision. Before making a final decision to impose discipline, the College met with Ms. Williams and asked her to respond to the information it had gained from the student and Ms. Knight. The employer then issued a detailed letter of discipline, setting out its conclusions, its reasons and imposing a 5 day suspension. 7. Of course, our decision must be based mostly on the evidence of witnesses to the exchange that was adduced before us. Ms. Sprague testified about the investigation process and the decision-making she carried out with Ms. Craddock. The union suggested that the College should have called Ms. Craddock who would have been able to speak directly to Ms. Williams’ job duties and whether she overstepped them in her exchange with the student. In our view, the College’s decision to call Jeremy Staples, Associate Dean, Faculty of Business, who testified to his role in “reigning in” Ms. William’s job duties was adequate. Ms. Craddock’s evidence would have only duplicated uncontroverted evidence. Of course, the union could have called Ms. Craddock as its own witness. The incident that led to discipline 8. The evidence about what happened is not entirely clear for reasons that we will detail below. The College alleged that student AB visited Ms. Williams to discuss a placement. AB told Ms. Williams that she was thinking of taking the Office Administrative Legal Program (OA Legal) after she completed the Paralegal Program. The College asserts that Ms. Williams disparaged the OA Legal Program, saying she would not learn anything that she had not already learned in the Paralegal program. 9. The College further asserts that Ms. Williams questioned how the student could afford it since she had no internet or phone and embarrassed the student about her financial status. The College alleges that Ms. Williams then took AB to talk to Professor Patricia Knight. Before leaving the student with Ms. Knight, Ms. Williams is alleged to have directed Ms. Knight to tell AB not to take the OA Legal course. According to the College, Ms. Williams’ conduct was inappropriate for a variety of reasons. She took on counselling of the student, which is outside her job duties, as she knows. She upset and embarrassed the student, inappropriately criticized another College program, and then behaved in a dictatorial manner to Ms. Knight. Moreover, according to the College, the advice Ms. Williams gave to AB was wrong. Ms. Knight had previously talked to the student and based on her personality and career interests, the OA Legal Program was an appropriate next step. -3- The Evidence 10. Ms. Williams denies behaving inappropriately. She testified that the student approached her to discuss a placement. In the course of that discussion, AB mentioned that she was thinking of taking OA Legal. Ms. Williams said that she asked the student about her interests, and hearing that she wanted to go into Family Law as a legal assistant, told her she could do that with the Paralegal diploma. Ms. Williams said that AB was anxious in their meeting, which was not unusual and that they also discussed a placement interview in Toronto that had not gone well but that the student wanted to try again. Ms. Williams said that it was not unusual for students to talk to her about their career plans when they came to talk about placements because students hoped that the placement would lead to a job at the same location. Ms. Williams said that she never disparaged the OA Legal program, only indicating that it was not necessary for the career the student wanted to pursue. She did not recall specifically talking about AB’s financial status. She did recall telling her that she had not been able to reach her by phone or e- mail and reminded the student of the importance of staying in touch through the placement process. Ms. Williams said that she had no knowledge about AB’s financial status, just that she was a good student, on a full scholarship, who had told her she was in the middle of moving and that was why she could not be easily contacted. 11. Ms. Williams agreed that she took the student to see Ms. Knight but denied directing Ms. Knight to tell the student not to take OA Legal. Ms. Williams said that she took the student to Ms. Knight because she was a member of faculty able to give the student academic and career advice in the absence of the Academic Co-ordinator, to whom Ms. Williams had initially planned to escort the student. 12. It is common ground that after the student met with Ms Knight, she returned to Ms. Williams to thank her for her assistance. 13. This incident did not come to the College’s attention until approximately two months after the fact. Ms. Knight did not raise any concerns and the student did not complain. The union argued that the absence of concern by Ms. Knight and the student indicated that the exchange was typical and uneventful. The delay in the matter coming to the College’s attention meant that Ms. Knight, the student and Ms. Williams were interviewed more than two months after this fairly brief event had passed. Moreover, the three witnesses testified as to these events more than two years after they occurred. Ms. Williams testified that when the employer first interviewed her, it took her a few minutes before she could figure out what the employer was talking about. 14. We will start first with the evidence of Ms. Knight because it assists in putting the rest of the oral evidence in context. Ms. Knight is a professor teaching substantive law classes in the Paralegal program at Sheridan. She was working in her workspace when Ms. Williams and AB came to her. She recalls that Ms. Williams told her “tell AB not to transfer to the OA Legal program”. Ms Knight said that she was a bit taken aback by Ms. Williams’ tone but she concentrated on the student, who was very upset. Ms. Knight said that Ms. Williams left and Ms. Knight spent the next 5 or 10 minutes trying to calm the student down. Ms. Knight said she was not able to accomplish much with the student besides calming her down. -4- 15. Ms. Knight explained why it might be difficult for the student to work as a law clerk in an office that did Family law after graduating as a paralegal. She explained that because Family law is an impermissible area of work for paralegals, the Law Society would scrutinize the work of a licensed paralegal doing any kind of Family law related work. In Ms. Knight’s view, Ms. Williams had not given the student good advice and in any event, Ms. Knight had already discussed with the student that the OA Legal Program was a good fit given her future career aspirations. Ms. Knight said that she and the student had discussed on a number of occasions taking the OA Legal Program when she completed the Paralegal program. 16. Ms. Knight said that she did not know the context from which Ms. Williams’ direction arose or why she had brought the student to her workspace. Ms. Knight testified that the student recounted that Ms. Williams was putting pressure on her to take a placement in Toronto but she could not afford the commute. Mostly, the student was upset and Ms. Knight spent 5 or 10 minutes calming her down. 17. In her testimony before us, AB initially recalled little of her discussion with Ms. Williams. She could not recall whether she had gone to a placement interview in Toronto, until prompted. Since the interview had gone, by all accounts, badly, and she had come to Ms. Williams to discuss what to do about a placement, it was surprising that AB could not initially recall if she had gone to Toronto. 18. With prompting, the student recalled that she had told Ms. Williams that she did not want a placement in Toronto because she could not afford to commute from her home in Brampton. AB said that Ms. Williams pressed her, wanting her to return to the Toronto placement for a second interview. The student said that Ms. Williams embarrassed her about her financial situation, but the student could not recall the words she used. 19. The student said that when she mentioned taking the OA Legal Program, Ms. Williams did not only say that she did not need it, but left the student with the impression that she did not think much of the course. She could not recall the exact words Ms. Williams had used, but was certain that Ms. Williams was very negative. Ms. Williams conveyed that the course was not as good as Paralegal, did not teach as much and was not useful. 20. The student recalled Ms. Williams escorting her to meet with Ms. Knight and Ms. Williams telling Ms. Knight to talk the student out of taking OA Legal. The student recalled being upset and discussing what Ms. Williams had said to her. In cross- examination, the student agreed that she had thanked Ms. Williams before leaving the College. 21. Ms. Williams testified that the student had arrived without an appointment to discuss placements. Ms. Williams said that the student had made the initial choice to look for a placement in Toronto at a prestigious firm because the student thought it might lead to a higher paying job. Ms. Williams said that the law firm, not the student, had advised her that the interview had not gone well. When Ms. Williams discussed the poor interview with the student when she came to meet with her, Ms. Williams said it was the student who wanted another interview. In cross-examination, Ms. Williams denied pressing the student and said that she had no reason to force the student to interview again. -5- 22. Ms. Williams recalled the student stating an interest in the OA Legal program. Ms. Williams said that the student raised it in the context of discussing what work she wanted to do after school. Ms. Williams said that she did not criticize the OA Legal program and has no reason to do so. She recalls telling the student that it was not necessary to take that course to work in a law office doing Family law. Ms. Williams said that the conversation was short and she then took the student to talk with the Program Co- ordinator to discuss the options with the student. Because the Co-ordinator was not at his desk, Ms. Williams took the student to Ms. Knight. Ms. Williams denied telling Ms. Knight to tell the student not to take OA Legal. Ms. Williams believes she asked Ms. Knight to discuss options with the student. Analysis and decision 23. As set out above, in our view, Ms. Knight’s evidence is key to understanding the rest of the evidence and placing in context. Although Ms. Knight was candid in saying she could not recall all aspects of her encounter with the student and Ms. Williams, she is certain that Ms. Williams specifically directed her to tell the student not to take the OA Legal Program. Ms. Knight said that she was a bit taken aback by the request and that is why she remembered it. It was clear from Ms Knight’s evidence that she did not think it appropriate for Ms. Williams to make such a statement and direction to a faculty member about how she should advise a student. 24. We conclude that Ms. Williams made the statement to Ms. Knight in a tone that conveyed that Ms. Williams had a strong negative opinion about the usefulness of the OA Legal course for the student, and that she expected Ms. Knight to convey the same to the student. We accept Ms. Knight’s evidence on this point. She was approached by the College when it learned that she might have information. She has no particular interest in the outcome of this matter. She gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and explained why she could recall what Ms. William said and her tone. 25. As set out above, we are satisfied that Ms. Williams conveyed both to Ms. Knight, and the student, that she had a strong negative opinion about the usefulness of the OA Program for this student and expected Ms. Knight to agree and express the same to the student. In our view, that evidence bolsters and supports the evidence of the student. It is more likely than not that the approach to Ms. Knight followed Ms. Williams conveying a strong view about the utility of the OA Legal Program to the student and expecting the student to act on Ms. Williams’ opinion. Contrary to Ms. Williams’ assertion that she took the student to Ms. Knight to discuss options, we conclude that Ms. Williams took the student to Ms. Knight for reinforcement and confirmation of the opinion and course of action that Ms. Williams had already determined and expressed to the student. 26. Having viewed Ms. Williams’ demeanour and expression when she testified, we can see that she is confident in her knowledge of her position, of the Faculty of Business, of the Paralegal program and the job opportunities in the field. She is not reluctant to convey that knowledge and the firmness of her views. We can see how that firmness of view might be perceived by a student; as a strong direction to reconsider her plan to take the OA Legal program. That could be very upsetting, particularly in the context of the student having performed badly in a placement interview, knowing she had to complete a placement to graduate but not wanting to work as a paralegal. -6- 27. Ms. Knight rightly received Ms. Williams’ direction to tell the student not to take the OA Legal program as an inappropriate interference in academic counselling that upset an already confused and distressed student. 28. We understand and appreciate that Ms. Williams denies conveying such strong views to the student or directing Ms. Knight. We do not believe that Ms. Williams lied to us. The incident was entirely typical and ordinary to Ms. Williams and she was not asked about it for a couple of months. It was not memorable to her and had ended with the student thanking her for her help. In our view, Ms. Williams does not appreciate how forcefully she expresses her views and does not share the College’s opinion of the boundaries of her position. 29. We also understand that students would reasonably talk to the Field Placement Officer about their career aspirations. Ms. Williams’ testimony that the students see their unpaid placements as a chance to make a good impression and perhaps secure work was unchallenged. And it makes sense. A significant aspect of many College programs is the opportunity to get workplace experience and make a good impression on prospective employers. It would be surprising to us if Paralegal students did not talk to Ms. Williams about their career hopes and how to advance them in their choice of a placement. 30. Ms. Williams overstepped the line when she counselled the student, in a negative way, not to take the OA Legal Program. That advice had nothing to do with a choice of placement in the Paralegal program and so is clearly outside Ms. William’s job duties. Moreover, Ms. Williams interfered in the counselling that was going on between Ms. Knight and the student because Ms. Williams gave advice that conflicted with the advice of Ms. Knight. 31. Academic and career counselling do not fall within the boundaries of Ms. Williams’ job, nor, as the parties have agreed, within the boundaries of the work of this bargaining unit. Academic and career counselling fall within the work of the academic bargaining unit. 32. The union sought to rely on an aspect of the PDF for the Field Placement Officer position. Its Duties and Responsibilities include under the title “Program Promotions” “contacts applicants for first semester to discuss program to measure and assist with enrolment for Court and Tribunal program”, “acts as liaison to potential students to assist them with their decisions and inform them about the program and legal field”. In our view, looking at the words in their context, reveals that the Field Placement Officer is to perform those narrow tasks for potential students and for students who have enrolled but have not started the program. The student at issue in this matter was enrolled and coming to the end of the Paralegal program. Faculty career counsellors and academic advisors hold the responsibility to provide career and academic counselling to students like AB. As Ms. Sprague testified, Ms. Williams should have referred AB to the Program Co- ordinator or Employment Advisor as soon as the student expressed an interest in the OA Legal Program and whether it fit with her career plans. 33. The union also suggested in its questions to witnesses and in its final submissions that it was appropriate for Ms. Williams to intervene because the student was proposing to take the drastic step of quitting the Paralegal Program to take the OA Legal program. However, there is no evidence that AB was talking about quitting the Paralegal Program. -7- Ms. Williams, AB and Ms. Knight consistently testified that the student was proposing to take the OA Legal Program after she completed the Paralegal Program and the potential conflict was that the OA Legal Program started before the student would have completed her Paralegal field placement. Consequently, to the extent that it is relevant at all, there is no evidence that AB was proposing to quit the Paralegal program before completion. Past advice about the boundaries of the Field Placement Officer position 34. Ms. Williams has been specifically told that she is not to carry out academic and career counselling. Mr. Jeremy Staples, Associate Dean Faculty of Business, advised that when he became responsible for the Paralegal Program in 2009, he realized that Ms. Williams’ responsibilities had crept into the work of the academic bargaining unit. Mr. Staples testified that the 14 week field placement is an academic program and counselling should come from the faculty. He said that Ms. Williams had been providing academic counselling, in part, because no Academic Advisor had been appointed for the Paralegal program, which had been a small program. 35. Mr. Staples said that Ms. Williams had been assessing student suitability for placements in “one on ones” and had been acting as a judge in the Mock Court, both of which were academic activities. Mr. Staples met with Ms. Williams and Ms. Craddock, her supervisor, in the Fall of 2009 and advised Ms. Williams that she would no longer be performing work that fell outside the boundaries of the support bargaining unit. Mr. Staples testified that he told Ms. Williams they were expecting more students to enrol in the Paralegal Program and Ms. Williams should focus her efforts on finding more field placements. 36. Ms. Williams was not pleased with those changes. That is understandable. She had established the Paralegal networking forum, but was no longer to be involved. She had enjoyed acting as a judge in the Mock Trials and was losing that role. She testified that she does not believe that she is as effective in getting to know the students now that she no longer meets with them “one on one”. 37. However, the College is entitled to determine what work is to be performed. Moreover, it was necessary for the College to draw and maintain a clear line where it was concerned that Ms. Williams was performing the work of the academic bargaining unit. 38. We know that Ms. Williams was unsatisfied with the change in job duties because she received a three day suspension for, among other things, asking students to intervene in her disagreement about the reduction in her duties and raising the same issue with the paralegal Program Advisory Committee. The employer concluded that both actions were inappropriate and disciplined Ms. Williams. 39. We recite that history to demonstrate that Ms. Williams had been previously advised that she was not to counsel students or otherwise perform work of the academic bargaining unit. As the employer argued, Ms. Williams disagreed with that direction but never suggested that she did not understand it. We conclude that Ms. Williams’ counselling of the student not to pursue the OA Legal Program and her attempt to have Ms. Knight affirm that direction were a repeat of misconduct for which Ms. Williams had been disciplined in the previous year. -8- Misconduct that has not been established 40. We are less satisfied on the evidence, that Ms. Williams disparaged the student’s financial status. It is more likely that Ms. Williams strongly conveyed to the student that she had not been able to contact her and that staying in touch by phone or e-mail was the student’s responsibility. The student was not able to tell us what Ms. Williams said to her that was embarrassing. We agree with the union that the fact that the student was left with a negative feeling is not enough to conclude that Ms. Williams engaged in wrongdoing. 41. The evidence is not clear about what Ms. Williams said about the OA Legal program that was disparaging. The student could not recall exactly what was said. In cross-examination, she was asked if Ms. Williams had merely indicated that the program was not appropriate for her because she was in the Paralegal program and could meet her career goals from that course. The student said “there was more to it than that”, that she would not learn anything new, but could not be more precise. 42. We are drawn back to Ms. Knight’s evidence. Of course, she was not present when Ms. Williams met alone with the student. But Ms. Williams’ approach to Ms. Knight is consistent with Ms. Williams having said something negative to the student about the OA Legal program, at least for her. We are not able make more precise findings about what that said. Consequently, we conclude that the employer has not established that Ms. Williams disparaged the OA Legal Program and thereby, hurt the reputation of that program and Sheridan College in general. 43. For the reasons set out in paragraph 12 we do not agree with the employer’s assertion that Ms. Williams was untruthful when she met with the employer in the fact- finding meeting. Ms. Williams did not believe that she had done anything out of the ordinary with the student. For her, there was nothing specific or unusual to recall. Summary 44. We conclude that Ms. Williams behaved wrongly during the incident of December 6, 2012. She engaged in academic counselling in telling the student not to take the OA Legal Program. Ms. Williams compounded that action by inappropriately directing a faculty member to agree with and act on Ms. Williams’ opinion. Ms. Williams unnecessarily upset the student by strongly expressing a view that was contrary to the student’s plan for her future, in circumstances where the student was already upset by the unsuccessful placement interview. Ms. Williams’ overstepped the boundaries of her job and created negative consequences for the student and for the faculty member, Ms. Knight, who tried to repair the damage. Is a five day suspension an appropriate disciplinary response? 45. The union relied on Cambridge Brass and USWA Local 4045 (2006) 152 L.A.C. (4th) 37 (O. Gray) for the proposition that where an employer does not make out all of the basis for discipline it relied on, the board of arbitration should consider reducing the penalty. That case, however, also indicates that an arbitration board should not readily second-guess the employer’s choice of a disciplinary penalty when the employer’s choice falls within the range of the reasonable. The union also relied on Culinar Foods Inc. and American Federation of Grain Millers, Local 242 (1995) 48 L.A.C. (4th) 99 (Brandt), -9- which said that where there has been a one year gap between periods of misconduct, it is not always appropriate to move to the next level in progressive discipline. 46. The employer countered that the gap between the discipline in this case is less than one year. The 3 day suspension was imposed on May 27, 2010. The incident which gave rise to the 5 day suspension occurred on December 6, 2010 and the discipline was imposed on February 11, 2011. The employer noted that in the space of two academic semesters, the grievor has engaged in similar, troubling conduct, suggesting that she has not learned from the progressive discipline. 47. We would be inclined to reduce the discipline somewhat, because the employer has not proved all of the grounds that it relied on to support the discipline. However, we are concerned that the misconduct that led to the 5 day suspension has many aspects in common with the misconduct that led to the 3 day suspension, and occurred less than 7 months later. Ms. Williams has again shown an unwillingness to accept the boundaries of her position as they have been communicated by the employer. In the course of the hearing Ms. Williams showed no appreciation that she had exceeded boundaries. Moreover, she does not appear to have accepted that some responsibilities that she enjoyed in her job are no longer part of her functions. Ms. Williams must accept those changes or face further and more serious discipline. We are not confident that a reduction in the length of the suspension would send the right message. We uphold the discipline. Disposition 48. For the reasons set out above, we dismiss the grievance. Signed at Georgetown, this 5th day of April 2013. Mary Ellen Cummings “Ann E. Burke” I agree/dissent “Pamela Munt-Madill” I agree/dissent Ms. Munt-Madill’s dissent follows on the next page -10- Dissent of Pamela Munt-Madill 1. I disagree with the Majority’s decision. 2. The grievor did, on her own admission, engage in conduct which constituted career counselling and which the College has made clear exceeded her job duties. This conduct is worthy of some discipline. 3. With regards to instructing Ms. Knight to counsel AB not to switch programs, the evidence suggested that this comment was justified in the circumstances. 4. A student must complete the field placement portion of the Paralegal Program to complete the course. Furthermore, that field placement must take place in the spring of the second year of the Program. The OA Legal program which AB was considering taking commenced before the end of the spring term and therefore, her enrolment in that program at the time discussed would have precluded AB from finishing her placement. Without this placement AB would not have completed her Program. 5. Ms. William’s evidence was that this was the context of her direction to Ms. Knight. Seen in this light the direction was appropriate. Indeed, to not have discouraged AB from leaving before finishing placement would have been, as the Union asserted, irresponsible on the part of all of those involved. 6. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to uphold the entire 5 day suspension. The conduct the College based this penalty on is found on page one of the Majority’s decision. “The College asserts that Ms. William upset and embarrassed a student, acted outside her job description, criticized a program taught in another department, undermining the reputation of the department and the College. The College further maintains that Ms. William’s was not honest and candid when these allegations were brought to her attention.” 7. The Majority found the only accusation proven was that grievor exceeded her job duties. Exceeding of one’s job duties would, in the normal course, be viewed as matter warranting counselling. What the Board has done by supporting the College’s discipline level, with only the most minor of the accusations proven, is to substitute a much harsher penalty than the College initially imposed. Of particular concern is the allegation that the Grievor was not honest and candid when these allegations were first brought to her attention. It is extremely troubling that the Grievor, by merely disagreeing with the College’s interpretation of her actions and offering a response, becomes subject to further discipline. Defending herself honestly and vigorously, as was her right, was used by the College as grounds for further discipline. Ironically, it was the statements of the Grievor made in these meetings that are the main basis for the finding that she counselled a student. Far from being dishonest, this Grievor’ s candour came back to harm her. 8. This grievor is a long-term employee of the College. Until these two incidents she has had a clear discipline record. It is excessive in the extreme to have an employee who engaged in conduct outside her job duties given a 5 day suspension even with her previous discipline. Accordingly, a much reduced penalty should be imposed. “Pamela Munt-Madill”