HomeMy WebLinkAboutSnider 03-07-21
Concerning an arbitration
Between:
Almaguin Highlands Community Living
and
ó~ -~')l--o \'"L
, ,
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 637
Grievance of Mark Snider, discipline
Arbitrator: Joseph W. Samuels
For the Parties
Employer
Robert McGrath, Representative
Kerry Carnevale, Program Manager
Lisa Graham, Executive Director
Kelly Marshall, Supervisor
Union
Will Presley, Grievance Officer
Barry Wilson, Local President
Mark Snider, Grievor
Hearing in North Bay, July 17,2003
1
On March 12,2003, Mark Snider was suspended without pay for
twenty working days because he consumed alcohol while on shift in late
February and early March 2003.
He grieved that there was no just cause for such severe discipline.
The critical facts in this case are not in dispute.
Mr. Snider had fifteen years of unblemished service. He was
considered a good employee. Indeed, in the letter informing him of the
discipline, Kerry Carnevale, the then-Acting Executive Director and a
Program Manager, characterized Mr. Snider's time with the agency as "long
and excellent service". Mr. Snider was a senior employee who served as a
rol~ model. He helped junior staff members to learn their jobs. At the time,
he was caring for a client who lived in premises which the client rented from
the agency-a client who was self-abusive and physically restrained, but a
client who knew what was happening.
On March 7, an empty 13-ounce liquor bottle was found in an agency
residence. Before he was asked about it, Mr. Snider came forward to say that
the bottle was his. He had purchased the "mickey" on February 28, while
caring for the client. The client went with Mr. Snider to the liquor store and,
when the bottle was purchased, the client enquired for whom the bottle was
purchased and Mr. Snider said it was his. He was going to take it home.
In fact, Mr. Snider readily acknowledged that he drank some of the
liquor during his shifts on February 28 and March 4. He says that he drank
the rest of the contents at home. The grievor was going through a difficult
period personally, in particular because his young child was going in for an
operation. He needed time off work, but circumstances found him doing
extra shifts and being denied some requested vacation time. He was angry at
the Employer.
There is no evidence that his care for the client was prejudiced in any
way because of his consumption of the alcohol at work. Indeed, it may well
have been that the client never saw the grievor take a drink (given that the
2
client is restrained). The colleagues who replaced the grievor at the end of
the shifts saw nothing wrong with his condition. But, obviously, the grievor's
conduct was prejudicial to the agency's reputation and the consumption could
have led to an impairment of his ability to care for the client. The grievor
works almost entirely without supervision. The agency places great trust in
him to perform his duties independently at a high standard.
Management was shaken when it learned what the grievor had done.
Their trust in him was weakened. While it was known that staff members at a
summer camp for clients had consumed alcohol over several years in the
presence of clients, it appears that management thought this occurred only
when the staff members were off duty (the camps ran for three to five days).
However, the environment at the camp was such that staff members were
never fully free of responsibility for clients so that the consumption of alcohol
would have been during periods when staff had responsibility for clients.
There appears to have been no problem with this consumption, and
management never took any action because of it.
In my view, Mr. Carnevale is clearly correct when he wrote in his
discipline letter that "your actions could have had serious ramifications for the
client, the Association and yourself'.
In my view, Mr. Snider's conduct was just cause for some discipline. It
was necessary for the Employer to make clear to Mr. Snider and to other
employees that this type of conduct is simply unacceptable and must not
happen again. The issue is whether there was just cause for a twenty-
working-day suspension.
Mter considering all the facts in this situation, I have concluded that the
suspension was too harsh. I am moved particularly by the facts that Mr.
Snider immediately acknowledged what he had done and was clearly
3
remorseful; for an employee whom management readily acknowledges has
given "long and excellent service", finding himself in this predicament was
probably deterrent enough to prevent any similar conduct in the future
(indeed, in his letter of discipline, Mr. Carnevale said that "I have decided to
take you at your word that this kind of behaviour will not be repeated"); and
Mr. Snider was going through a particularly difficult patch personally. The
penalty for his conduct ought to be no more that is sufficient to deter him
from doing this again, and to send a clear message to other staff members
that this conduct cannot be tolerated.
In all the circumstances here, I find that a five-working-day suspension
would have served the Employer's purposes, and I order that Mr. Snider's
record be changed to record a five-working-day suspension instead of the
twenty-working-day suspension he was given. I would add, however, that
this five-working-day suspension should be viewed as seriously as was the
. harsher penalty issued by the Employer in the first place. In my view, Mr.
Carnevale was correct in his discipline letter when he said "should this or
similar behaviour be repeated your service with the Association will be
terminated".
Mr. Snider should be compensated for any monetary losses as a result
of the extra fifteen working days for which he was suspended.
4
And I will remain seized to deal with any issues which may arise as a
result of this award.
Done at London, Ontario, this 21st day of July, 2003