Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMacey 02-12-09 ',.. 0 ~-(,L.&-o\~ DEC 1 3 2002 IN THE 'MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN CIDLDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF SUDBURY AND MANITOULIN (the "Society") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (the "Union") RE: GRIEVANCE OF R. MACEY ARBITRATOR: MICHEL G. PICHER Appearing for the Company: Leah Clarke Counsel Appearing for the Union: Will Presley Grievance Officer A hearing in this matter was held in Sudbury on November 28, 2002. ...' AWARD This arbitration concerns the grievance of family services worker Richard Macey against a three day suspension. In or about January of 2002 Mr. Macey was assessed the suspension for the failure to properly record case notes on a number of occasions. In light of his previous discipline for a similar infraction the employer deemed a three-day suspension an appropriate measure of discipline. The Union maintains that the discipline is excessive, and out of keeping with the principle of progressive discipline. The facts material to this grievance are not in substantial dispute. As a family services worker the grievor is responsible for maintaining thorough case recordings in respect of each and every contact involving a child welfare case administered by the Children's Aid Society. Given the highly sensitive nature of the Society's work, and the potential for judicial, political and media scrutiny of its actions in any given case, the maintaining of complete and accurate records in each file is essential to the responsible discharge of the Society's obligations. The Union takes no issue with that fact. As noted above, the record discloses that on a previous occasion Mr. Massey was found to have been deficient in properly maintaining case recordings. It is common ground that on March 15, 2001 the first step of the range of available discipline, a recorded verbal warning, was registered against his record. It would appear that at that time Mr. Macey acknowledged his error ... 2 and undertook to improve his performance with respect to record keeping. Unfortunately, some ten months later, he was found to have failed to maintain case recordings on some 37 occasions. His deficiencies in that regard apparently involved some 12 files over a six-month period. Counsel for the employer maintains that the repeat offence in respect of so serious an obligation merits a serious measure of discipline. She stresses that the failure to maintain proper records leaves the Society extremely vulnerable in the event of any public scrutiny of its records, an event not uncommon in the field of Children's Aid casework. She submits that the repeated failure to maintain proper records by the grievor calls into question the rehabilitative value of the first measure of discipline assessed against him. In the circumstances she maintains that a suspension of three days was essential to bring home to Mr. Macey the seriousness of his failure to maintain the necessary case records, and urges the Arbitrator to dismiss the grievance. The Union's representative does not dispute the importance of case note recording in the day to day business of the Children's Aid Society. He stresses, however, that lesser levels of discipline were available to the employer in the circumstances. In particular, he notes that the next level of discipline following a recorded verbal warning is a written reprimand or warning. He maintains that that would have been an appropriate level 'Of penalty in respect of the grievor's second offence. In mitigation he also submits that the grievor's error was due in ~ , 3 part to an excessive caseload. On that basis he maintains that the employer did not have just cause for assessing a three day suspension. The Arbitrator can appreciate the perspective of both parties. On balance, however, I am persuaded that the concerns of the employer are well founded, to the extent that yet another reprimand, whether verbal or written, would not appear to be commensurate with the gravity of the failure of responsibility disclosed. I am satisfied that the employer is correct in resorting to a suspension for the infraction committed by Mr. Macey. The circumstances, however, I am of the view that a one day suspension would be sufficient to convey to him the gravity of the offence and the need to correct his habits in respect of proper documentation. On that basis, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to reduce the penalty accordingly. In the result, the Arbitrator allows the grievance, in part. The penalty assessed against Mr. Macey shall be reduced to a one-day suspension, and he shall be compensated for his wages and benefits in respect of the additional two days. The Arbitrator considers it important to stress, however, that the grievor should not interpret this award as an indication that he has a license to fail yet again in his obligation to maintain thorough, accurate and timely case recordings in all of his child protection files. Indeed, should the instant discipline fail to be effective in bringing home to Mr. Macey the importance of this aspect of his work, any future recidivism may naturally raise questions as to his capacity to fulfill the 4 sensitive responsibilities of his position. Given the responsibilities of the Society and its vulnerability to adverse publicity, notwithstanding his good work in other respects, any recidivism in this sensitive area could well call into question the grievor's very employability. It is therefore to be hoped, and in fact expected, that in the future the grievor will faithfully discharge his obligations in this critical area of the Society's public obligations. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction in the event of any dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation or implementation of this award. Dated at Toronto this 9th day of December 2002. I / J i/ ~ Michel G. Picher Arbitrator