HomeMy WebLinkAboutGregory 96-09-11 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology
(Employer)
- and -
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Union)
And in the Matter of Robert Gregory
BOARD OF ARBITRATION: M. Brian Keller, Chair
Sherrill Murray, Union Nominee
Rene St. Onge, Employer Nominee
APPEARANCES: Ross Dunsmore for the Employer
Nick Coleman for the Union
Hearings in Toronto on February 12, 1994, October 17, October 25,
October 27, November 12, November 14, November 21, November 22,
March 29, 1995, June 19, June 20, August 4, September 15, September
21, October 24, May 7, 1996, June 12 and June 13, 1996.
2
AWARD
At the time of his discharge on June 30, 1993 the grievor was an
employee in the Redirection Through Education (R.T.E.) Program at
Seneca College. At the time of his discharge, he was Coordinator
of Program Development for Disabled and Special Needs. The grievor
had been employed as a Counsellor in the programs since 1986 and
for most of that period, he was also Coordinator of the R.T.E.
Program. Until the time of his discharge he had no disciplinary
record nor was he ever counselled with respect to discipline.
The letter of discharge provides three separate grounds for the
discharge. First, that the grievor substantially violated the
College's policy on discrimination / harassment and the Ontario
Human Right's Code. Second, that the College found that the
grievor's actions violated his trust and responsibility as a
teacher, counsellor and co-worker to students and staff. Three,
the College found that the grievor's actions constituted
professional misconduct and a breach of professional trust. The
letter of discharge went on to say that the discharge resulted from
the three points mentioned above and in light of the grievor's
denial of any wrong doings. The letter of discharge was signed by
Susan Vallance-Macias, Director, Education and Employment Equity.
As indicated in the letter of discharge there were a number of
events that precipitated the action of the Employer. One of th~se-
alleged events tOok place in 1990. When the Employer indicated to
the Board that it intended to rely on that event, the Union
objected arguing that the College had knowledge of the event at the
time and did not take action in a timely fashion, nor was the
grievor informed of the allegations against him. Nor was there any
formal investigation of the matter. The Union argued that as a
result, the matter could not be brought forward and used as a basis
to discipline the grievor.
The Employer agreed that the alleged incident in 1990 came to their
attentio~ at that time but informed the Board that the alleged
3
complainant was not prepared to have the matter pursued then. The
College was, therefore, not prepared to deal with it further at
that time. It was only when further matters came to light that
they decided to pursue those further matters plus the incident that
took place in 1990.
The Board indicated to the parties at the time that it was prepared
to hear evidence with respect to that incident but would determine
what weight, if any, it would give to the alleged incident in 1990.
After hearing the evidence of the parties as well as the arguments
of counsel it is our conclusion that we can give no weight to the
alleged incident in 199°. We reached that conclusion because it
was evident in listening to the witnesses that the delay in not
bringing the matter to the attention of the grievor has seripusly
prejudiced his ability to deal with the allegations made against
him. This decision of the Board should not be construed as a
finding that the incident did or did not take place, but simply
that the lapse of time precludes the Board from properly giving any
weight to the evidence with respect to that matter.
The R.T.E. program has been given at Seneca since 1980. It is a
unique community mental health program utilizing a post secondary
educational environment for psychiatric rehabilitation. The
program has as it's goal the successful reintegration of students
into full and active community life and work. Between 1980 &n~
August 1991 the program had enroled over 600 students.
The transition from patient to student to graduate involves a
complex set of principles wherein a therapeutic milieu is created
through the use of college facilities and resources. The primary
focus of R.T.E. is to utilize post secondary educational facilities
and resources in order to increase the self confidence of students
and to assist them in developing and implementing realistic career
objectives. The therapeutic milieu is designed to be active,
stimulating, supportive and encouraging in a way which addresses
individual needs for most social integration and assists students
in taking advantage of life's offerings. The program is part of
4
the counselling and special needs services at Seneca under the
direction of Arthur Burke.
The staff of the program consists of counsellors of whom, for most
of his working career at the College, the grievor was one. All the
counsellors have Masters degrees, the grievor's being in Social
Work, a degree he received at Sir Wilfrid Laurier University in
1977. In addition to the counsellors there is a staff support
person and two part-time faculty members responsible for academic
teaching. In addition to the Seneca faculty there are, from time
to time, student placements who work alongside the counsellors.
From the above brief description of the program it is clear that
the participants in the program are for the most part fragile,
easily influenced and this in turn places a significant onus on the
counsellors and other staff at R.T.E. in terms of their dealing
with the students of the program. There is no doubt that the
counsellors have to be, among other things, role models for the
students.
Throughout his working career the grievor has been involved in
working with the developmentally handicapped and mentally ill.
From 1971 to the present he has been Executive Director of the St.
Mary's Association for the Mentally Retarded; a vocational
counsellor the Ministry of Community and Social Services; Directo~
of Community Resources Huronia Regional Centre; Owner / Director of
the Mariposa Independent Living Programs Incorporated and; finally,
in 1986 a member of the R.T.E program staff. There is no doubt
that the grievor was knowledgeable of and aware at all times of the
importance of his role vis-a-vis the students and in particular the
impression that he could leave with the students in terms of his
behaviour and how he was perceived by them.
There were numerous allegations made against the grievor. After
hearing the evidence of the witnesses as well as the evidence of
the grievor himself the Board has no doubt that the allegations
against him aue, for the most part if not entirely, well founded.
5
Indeed as will be discussed later in these reasons the grievor was
prepared to acknowledge that he was guilty of many of the
allegations made against him.
The allegations can be broken down into essentially two categories.
The first are in the nature of racially discriminatory remarks and
particularly anti-semitic remarks and the second category is
sexually harassing remarks made against various individuals. We
will deal with each of those categories in turn commencing with the
anti-semitic remarks, giving examples, as follows, of the
allegations against him:
On one occasion a new counsellor had been hired and she had been on
the job for approximately one week. The grievor while in the hall
said loudly to Burke "Why did you ~ire another Jew, now there is
somebody else to take the Jewish holidays". On another occasion
with respect to the same employee the grievor saw her leave work at
about 4:00 p.m. one day and said "You're keeping Jewish hours,
you're keeping Jewish standard time".
Another situation occurred where the grievor, while on a holiday in
Florida, bought a pair of Mickey Mouse ears which he presented to
Burke as a.replacement for his skull cap. The grievor later wrote
about that incident in the Departmental newspaper. Th~ text of the
article was approved by Burke.
The individual referred to above and Burke testified and both
stated that they felt the remarks and the actions to be extremely
degrading and demoralizing.
There are numerous examples that fall into the category of sexually
harassing and degrading remarks. Some of them are as follows: The
grievor is alleged to have said the following about one of the
R.T.E. students "X is very cute but she is to screwed up to have a
relationship with".
With respect to a particular Field Placement student the grievor is
6
alleged to have made such comments as "Your butt was so big that
you have hurt the rock climber below if you fell". This comment
was made in relation to the rock climbing exercise that the student
and R.T.E. students had participated in. On another occasion
during an informal discussion at a luncheon table with respect to
the same Field Placement student where the student was talking
about being overweight the grievor said in front of everybody that
the student wasn't overweight just "full figured in the right
places". Again with respect to that same student the grievor is
alleged to have made some remarks when she was in a bad mood such
as "What is the matter, are you on your period?" and "Did you have
a fight with your boyfriend?". At another lunch time discussion
when the staff were discussing the hiring of a new counsellor the
grievor is alleged to have said that it was all he knew is that he
was hiring the woman with the biggest boobs. On another occasion
and again with respect to the Student Placement counsellor who had
been been hired to be a Member of the regular staff, the grievor is
alleged to have said to her "Well let's be honest the only reason
you got this job is because of your pretty face".
The Employer called expert witnesses to deal with the nature of the
remarks just referred to above. With respect specifically to the
anti-semitic remarks the Board heard the evidence of Mr. Bernard
Farber, National Director, Community Relations of the Canadian
Jewish Conference. Mr. Farber was given examples of the type j6s%
referred to above in relation to the comments made by the grievor
and testified that, in his expert opinion, those remarks were anti-
semitic in nature.
In cross-examination Mr. Farber was asked by counsel for the Union
about how an employer should react in such a situation and Mr.
Farber said that in his view the failure on the part of the College
to respond was inappropriate: That Management should have
disciplined, that he himself would have in this case. He further
stated that if action is not taken by Management a poisoned
atmosphere can develop and then it becomes more difficult for both
victim and the supervisor because the victim believes that he or
7
she has carte blanche to continue their actions. One of the keys,
he indicated, was to bring the behavior to the attention of the
perpetrator so that that person would realize that he or she can't
continue to get away with remarks that are being made. He
reiterated that the only way to deal with these issues is by
discipline and that's why it's so important.
In re-examination Mr. Farber indicated that he felt the situation
was a sad one because it could have been dealt with and it wasn't.
The second expert witness called by the Employer was Dr. Sandy
Welsh whose area of concentration for the last five years has been
sexual harassment. In her examination in chief Dr. Welsh testified
that the failure on the part of Management to react sends a message
that the actions are ok.° If people at the same level don't speak
up it sends a signal to both the harasser and the harassee that the
actions are ok. She stated that, in her expert opinion, the
evidence in the instant case demonstrated that the grievor was in
denial and that's why he needed to be confronted with his actions.
If not, she testified, the behaviour would continue.
During the course of her cross-examination Dr. Welsh testified that
the failure of others to bring these matters to the attention of
the grievor could heighten the impact of his actions because of the
perception on those being discriminated against that the actions~o~
the grievor are being condoned. She therefore concluded that it
was the fault of both those who did not bring it to the attention
of Management, and Management who were aware of it, and the grievor
himself.
Seneca College has a policy with respect to harassment and
discrimination. That policy provides that a complaint can be laid
by either an individual who feels that he or she has been harassed
or discriminated against or by the College itself. The policy
states, in part, that a complaint must be filed within six months
of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint unless the delay
was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result
8
to any person affected by the delay.
The role of the Office of the Director, Education Employment Equity
is to investigate a situation or complaint and try to effect a
resolution. It is the responsibility of the Director to inform a
person complained against that a complaint has been received and
forward any written documentation outlining the complaint through
that person. Where a situation has been raised through an
individual complainant and that person decides not to pursue the
matter the Director may continue the investigation on behalf of the
College.
The policy contains a specific section with respect to resolving
alleged situations of harassment or discrimination. It provides
that the Director shall meet with the parties involved and attempt
to effect a settlement of the complaint through mediation. It is
also the responsibility of the Director to provide counselling to
all parties in the dispute. It further states that if the
complaint is not resolved through mediation, at the request of the
complainant or at the discretion of the'OffiCe of the Director of
Education and Employment Equity or by the person against whom the
complaint is made, a Board of Inquiry will be struck.. Specifically
with respect to the Board of Inquiry the language of the policy is
mandatory i.e. it shall be appointed at the request of the
complainant, persons complained against or at the discretion of th~
Office of the Director of Education and Employment Equity.
The policy provides consequences for violation. It provides for
disciplinary action including but not restricted to warnings,
disciplinary directives, suspension and dismissal.
"The policy also contains a provision with respect to corporate
responsibilities. It states that:
"Ail Seneca College managers are responsible for creating and
maintaining a work environment that is free from
discrimination and harassment. It is also the responsibility
of each manager to ensure that all management practices are
9
consistent with this policy and the provisions of the Ontario
Human Right's Code.
A person who has the authority to prevent or discourage
discrimination and harassment and fails to do so will be
considered responsible for failing to exercise his or her
authority and in violation of this policy."
In the instant case the actions of the grievor had been going on
for a period of time and were known to other staff and managers at
Seneca College. The issue was formalized in September 1992 by Mr.
Burke who spoke with Vice President Goldenberg as well Ms.
Vallance-Macias. Thus, the alleged violations had been known to
the College for some period of time and were formally in hands of
Ms. Vallance-Macias as of September 1992.
Ms. Vallance~Macias sent a memorandum to the grievor on November
23, 1992. The letter to the grievor indicated that the College had
received.reports attributing certain conduct, actions and behaviour
towards staff and students at Seneca.College that could constitute
a direct violation of the College policy on discrimination /
harassment. The letter went on to say that a comprehensive
investigation with respect to those allegations using the College
procedures woUld follow. Effective, that date the grievor was
suspended.
The letter received by the grievor also contained the allegati6n~
against him.
The grievor and Vallance-Macias met on November 26, 1992 and the
meeting between them took approximately 6 hours. During that
meeting the two reviewed the alleged incidents of harassment and
sexual harassment that had been attached to the letter sent to the
grievor on November 23rd. According to Vallance-Macias the meeting
was an attempt to discuss the allegations and get information from
the grievor. She stated that the grievor was concerned that he
received the memorandum just before attending the meeting and was
further ~concerned about the vagueness of the allegations made
against him. - A review of the report demonstrates that the
10
incidents alleged against the grievor are both specific and general
but that there is no attribution of any of the comments or
incidents to any individuals.
It is obvious from the evidence above the grievor and Vallance-
Macias that during the course of that meeting the grievor was,
among other things, fishing to try to learn more details of the
allegations against him. It is further clear that it was his view
that the allegations had been made against him by certain
individuals and not by others. As things turn out he was wrong in
that supposition.
There is some dispute between Vallance-Macias and the grievor as to
how he handled the allegations. According to Ms. Vallance-Macias
who took notes during the meeting th~ grievor denied each and
everyone of the allegations made against him. The grievors'
recollection differs in that in his view he was not so much denying
the allegations as disbelieving that they could have occurred. It
was his view that the whole matter could be straightened if
Vallance-Macias went to talk with his colleagues because according
to the grievor, it was not in his nature to make the offending
remarks as alleged against him.
Ms. Vallance-Macias was asked about whether or not the policy
required mediation. She stated that it was her interpretation~o~
the document, and she authored the policy, that where the complaint
is a College complaint the section on mediation was not applicable.
She indicated that there were no individual complainants but simply
individuals from whom she received information. She went on to
testify that no Board of Inquiry was held because there was no
mediation and the section on the Board of Inquiry therefore was
without effect. She testified that where the matter is a College
complaint it is the College's choice alone as to whether a Board of
Inquiry is to be held or not. With respect to the issue of the
Board of Inquiry Ms. Vallance-Macias testified that the grievor
requested a Board of Inquiry sometime around the middle of July
1993 and that-request was rejected by the College by letter dated
11
July 26, 1993.
In his evidence the grievor testified that whereas he could not
recall most if not all of the incidents alleged against him once he
was given the names of individuals who were making the allegations
he had no reason to suspect that they were making up the
allegations against him and that he, for the most part, accepted
that he had said what he is alleged to have said and done what he
was alleged to have done. There were some exceptions to his
admissions where, in his view, it was just not in his nature to
make some of the comments alleged against him or to have done some
of the actions alleged against him. The grievor testified that he
had no knowledge of the pain he was causing to others and was truly
remorseful for what he had done. He testified that his actions
were not meant to be malicious but that it was just within his
nature to act as he did. He testified that he wished that others
had brought the matters to his attention beforehand.
In cross-examination the grievor acknowledged that he was aware of
Human Right's policies and codes and that it was in his nature to
live up to those to the best of his ability. He thought, he
testified, that he was doing so during the course of his tenure at
the College but that in retrospect it was clear that he had not.
The Employer argues that it is clear from the evidence that th~r~
is a violation of College policy: that there was proof of the
alleged conduct both from the witnesses and from the evidence of
the grievor himself. It was submitted by the College that the
intention of the grievor, (i.e.) whether or not the comments were
designed to be harassing or discriminatory or not was irrelevant.
The central issue, it was argued, is the perception of the
complainant with respect to the conduct. When inquiring into the
conduct one is asking whether the conduct was unwelcome to the
complainant not the harasser. Although the harasser often insists
that he did not mean anything the person being harassed might be
experiencing fear, stress, illness and financial loss. That is, it
was argued, recent court decisions in this area look at the effect
12
on the recipient rather than the claimed or actual intent of the
harasser.
It was further argued that the actions of the grievor were a
violation of his responsibilities as a teacher / counsellor.
Specifically, the grievor violated the trust his clients and
students had placed in him. This case is particularly difficult,
it was suggested, because teachers are in a position of both power
and trust and in this case we are not dealing with the average
student / teacher relationship. The counsellors in this program
deal with individuals who have psychiatric backgrounds. They are
especially vulnerable. The client must be able to trust the
counsellor and be assured that their vulnerability will not be
exploited. To this end the College promises its students that
there will °be no discrimination. It was argued that in this case
because of the grievor's position of power and trust individuals
who were reluctant to complain against him.
Counsel also dealt with the last of the allegations against the
grievor, the breach of professional trust. This, it was suggested
refers to the trust that the College has placed in the grievor
generally as an employee and specifically as a professional
counsellor. The Board was told that employers who provide services
to the public through their employees are entitled to demand a
higher standard of conduct from those employees than might 'b~
expected of other employees.
With respect to the appropriate sanction the Employer argued that
the only appropriate sanction could be to maintain the discharge.
The Employer stated that their understanding of the law is that
although an employee is usually entitled to a warning if ground of
dismissal is incompetence or inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory
service no warning is required if an employee's conduct has been
egregious. That category of misconduct includes gross
incompetence, habitual neglect of duty and conduct which an
employer'~would reasonably regard as revealing that the employee was
dishonest or untrustworthy. It was also argued that the law states
13
that it is not always necessary to deal with professional employees
in a series of progressive disciplinary measures prior to
discharge. An assessment and balancing of factors has to be
considered. Those factors include an assessment of the future
effects of the misconduct, the likelihood of reoccurrence and the
likelihood of correction if the difficulties of the employment
relationship is continued.
At the outset of his argument, counsel for the union stated that he
acknowledges that the grievor did make offensive and inappropriate
remarks and that was also acknowledged and accepted by the grievor
and although the grievor thought he understood and was implementing
human rights principles and policies, it was clear his practice was
different. The grievor, said counsel, was not sensitive enough
with respect to the impact of his remarks and ~that he has
experienced regret and remorse.
The union dealt specifically with letter of dismissal signed by Ms.
Valance-Macias. It is to be recalled & submitted, that is was
alleged in the letter that the grievor had denied making all of the
comments discussed at the meeting he had with Valance-Macias.
Counsel argues, however that he hadn't, that he had simply denied
some and those with improper intent, that he didn't deny that he
had make all of the comments.
It was argued that the matter in which the allegations were made
known to him, and specifically the meeting held in November, made
it difficult for the grievor to deal with the issues alleged
against him. It was difficult in particular for him to either
acknowledge or deny them without knowing who the alleged
complainants were and the particular circumstances of the alleged
comments. As a result, he was of the view that they were made by
individuals with whom he did not get along and accordingly the
manner in which he conducted himself during the meeting would have
been different had he known the names of the individuals raising
the complaints.
14
It was further argued that the first opportunity for the grievor to
express remorse was when he was testifying before the Board because
he had not heard the evidence against him until the hearing and was
not aware of who the complainants were until they testified during
the hearing.
It was further argued that the College was aware in late 1991 of
the complaints against the grievor and that the grievor's
supervisor, Mr. Burke, decided that the College would deal with it
not by confronting him but by reassigning him. It was pointed out
that from the time of his reassignment, there were no true
allegations made against him. It is further worthwhile noting,
Counsel pointed out, that the reassignment was characterized to the
grievor as a promotion and that there was never any suggestion as
to the real purpose for the reassignment.
The Union also argued that the delay in this case vitiates all
discipline against the grievor, that the case law provides'that
where there is delay and the delay can cause prejudice to a
grievor, no further action can be condoned by a Board of
arbitration.
Finally, it was argued that the College violated its own practices
and procedures as to how it handles human rights complaints, all to
the prejudice of the grievor. In that respect, it was submitted
that if the grievor had been allowed to appear before a Board of
Inquiry where he would have been presented with the evidence as he
was presented with the evidence before this Board, he would have
had the chance, as he did here, to see what he had done and this
matter would never have proceeded to the point of discharge.
This Board categorically states at the outset that it finds the
conduct of the grievor to have been reprehensible and is firmly of
the view that that reprehensible conduct requires and warrants
severe discipline. However, as in most matters, there is a
balancing of competing interests that must take place. In the
instant case, the Board was impressed by the evidence of the
15
individuals against whom the harassment and discrimination took
place. It was obvious that they were hurt by the actions of the
grievor. On the other hand, the Board has the evidence of the
expert witnesses called by the employer about how they would handle
situations of this sort and the results of not bringing situations
of this sort to the attention of the alleged perpetrator. The
Board also has in front of it the College's own policy as to how it
must deal with issues of harassment and discrimination.
Procedural fairness is one of the hallmarks of the Canadian
judicial system. It must also be one of the hallmarks of the
arbitral system. It is fundamental to this system that individuals
be aware at the earliest opportunity of allegations against them so
that they can either have an opportunity to correct their conduct
or not, in which case subsequent actions of the employer are
clearly justified.
In the instant case, it is our interpretation of the College's
policy that, at the very least, the grievor was entitled to a Board
of Inquiry. As indicated above, had a Board of Inquiry been held,
the matter might not have proceeded to this point. In our reading
of the policy of.the College, one thing becomes abundately clear;
a cornerstone of the policy is openness. Perpetrators face
harassers, harassers face perpetrators. The policy recognizes that
education is important. The policy recognizes that correction~is
possible. Unfortunately, in the instant case, by not following its
own policy procedurally, the ability to educate was lost.
With respect to the evidence of Farber and Welsh, it was their
common testimony that a harasser must be confronted, that education
is required and that, under certain circumstances, discipline is
required. If matters are ignored they stated, situations will get
worse and will not be resolved.
The Board can not ignore the issue of delay as raised by the Union.
The issue of delay is important, because it denies the grievor the
opportunity to raise a proper defense against the allegations. As
16
was pointed by counsel for the Union, in most situations where
there is an untoward delay, the law is that all the allegations are
simply dismissed.
We are not prepared to do that however. As stated above, we find
the conduct of the grievor to have been reprehensible. We share
the concerns of the College that the standard of conduct owed by
the grievor in his role as a counsellor in the College was a very
high standard. We can not, however, maintain a discharge given the
disregard of the College for its own policy and the evidence of the
two expert witnesses, Farber and Welsh. It was incumbent, in our
view, on the College to have followed its own policy, to have
brought the matters alleged against the grievor to his attention as
early as possible, and as specifically as pgssible so that he had
the opportunity of the earliest possible opportunity to deal with
the matters alleged against him. To not have done so allows us no
option but to vitiate the penalty of discharge.
Counsel for the employer argued that the victims in. this case are
the individuals against whom the harassment and discrimination took
place and not the grievor. We agree. This decision should not be
seen to be a vindication of the actions of the~grievor. The remedy
that must be fashioned must indicate clearly that he was not a
victim and that he should not benefit from his actions,
notwithstanding the delay as argued by Counsel for the Union. A
strong message must be passed to individuals who conduct themselves
as the grievor did that activity of this sort can not be tolerated.
On the other hand, the College has to be aware that there are basic
tenets of law that must be followed to protect the rights of
individuals against whom complaints are made and, as stated above,
its own policy acknowledges that.
Accordingly, it is the decision of this Board that the penalty of
discharge be expunged from the grievor's record and that a
suspension without pay and without loss of seniority be substituted
from the date of his discharge to the date of September 1, 1996.
The grievor is to be returned to the position held by him at the
17
date of the discharge or whatever other position the parties can
agree on.
The grievor appeared, during the hearing, to recognize the nature
of his behaviour. That is a start. We are of the view that
further counselling in this area would be advisable to fully ensure
such behaviour does not repeat itself.
This Board remains seized to deal with whatever issues may arise
from the implementation or interpretation of this award.
Date in Nepean, Ontario on, the ~lth day of September, 1996.
M.B. Keller, Chair
I concur "Sherrill Murray"
Sherrill Murray, Union Nominee
I dissent "Ren~ St. Onge"
Ren~ St. Onge, Employer Nominee
DISSENT
I have read the majority award and must respectfully dissent.
I agree with my colleagues on ~he board that the grievor engaged
in anti-semitic remarks and sexually harassing remarks. It is
this reprehensible pattern of conduct, toward women in
particular, which gzves credence to the "1990 Incident" in
Hamilton.
The complainant, was a highly believable witness, who told her
stopt with crystal clear recollection of the "1990 Incident" in
Hamilton. This clear recollection is not unusual for victims of
traumatic events. Even under vigorous cross examination her
testimony remained unshaken.
In contrast, the grievor's recollection of certain events was
vague, and he could not account for his whereabouts at the time
of the incident.
I believe the "1990 incident" $ccurred as ~he complainant
described it.
' Turning to the time factor, the college knew, in 1990, of the
"incident" in Hamilton. IL felt it could not proceed without the
complainant's agreement, which she refused to give at this time.
ks the Chairman of the Arbitration Board so aptly described the
students in the RTE Program as ve~, fragile and vulnerable
people, it is understandable that the complainant would not want
to confront the grievor.
In my opinion, the behaviour of the grievor, in reference to the
"1990 Incident", was so reprehensible and totally incon~patible
with the grievor's position, that it constituted an irreparable
breach of trust.
For the above reasons, I would have upheld ~he discharge and
dismissed the grievance on the basis of the "1990 Incident"
Reno Sc. 0n~e