HomeMy WebLinkAboutNienhuis 97-04-21BETWEEN:
LAMBTON COLLEGE
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
GRIEVANCE OF K. NIENHUIS
BOARD OF ARBITRATION:
JANE H. DEVLIN CHAIR
HUGH JOHN COOK COLLEGE NOMINEE
JON D. MCMANUS UNION NOMINEE
ROBERT J. ATKINSON, FOR THE COLLEGE
REBECCA MURDOCK, FOR THE UNION
OPSEU FILE NO.: 96C417
HEARING DATE: March 21, 1997
The grievance, which was filed by Kristi Nienhuis,
involves a claim of unjust discipline, verbal abuse and
harassment as well as the improper "threat" of a performance
appraisal. These allegations arise out of a meeting which the
Grievor attended with her Supervisor, Dave VanLeeuwen, on
February 19, 1996.
By way of background, in 1992 and 1993, the Grievor was
the victim of a stalker, who was a former co-worker, who'was
ultimately charged with numerous criminal offences. The Grievor
was also hospitalized with a broken arm and was absent from work
from 1992 to 1994 recovering from the trauma of these events.
When she returned to work in 1994, the College accommodated the
Grievor's physical restrictions by transferring her from the
Duplicating Department, where she had previously worked, to the
Registrar's Office where she was assigned to register students in
continuing education programs. Thereafter, the Grievor reported
to the Registrar~ Mr. VanLeeuwen.
Following her return to work in 1994, the Grievor was
absent on a number of occasions both as a result of her
involvement in the criminal proceedings and for health reasons.
In January, 1996, she was also absent for several days due to
bronchitis and in February, was off work for 6 days with
influenza. On her return to work on February 19th, she was
called to a meeting with Mr. VanLeeuwen.
According to the Grievor, Mr. VanLeeuwen began the
meeting by asking, ~What is it this time?" or words to that
effect. The Grievor indicated that she had influenza the
previous week and would provide the College with a medical
certificate which she did some time thereafter. Evidently, Mr.
VanLeeuwen then questioned the Grievor regarding her attendance
at an evening course at the College in which she was not
registered during the period of her absence from work. The
Grievor indicated that she had attended the course on only one
occasion with the Instructor's permission to cover a subject she
had missed when she had been enrolled in the course the previous
year. Mr. VanLeeuwen, however, expressed some concern as to how
the Grievor's attendance at a course in which she was not
registered would reflect on the Department. According to the
Grievor, he also made some reference to employees "like her"
causing problems'. The Grievor testified that she was hurt by Mr.
VanLeeuwen's comments and that following the meeting, she became
concerned that perhaps her job was in jeopardy.
Although the grievance also makes reference to the
threat of a performance appraisal, the Grievor acknowledged at
the hearing that, in fact, Mr. VanLeeuwen made no mention of an
appraisal during the meeting on February 19th. Instead, it would
3
appear that the following day, Gwen Trone, a Personnel officer,
suggested to the Grievor that a performance apPraisal be
conducted as a means of addressing issues between her and her
Supervisor. In any event, the evidence indicates that no
discipline was imposed following the meeting on February 19th.
At the conclusion of the Grievor's evidence, the
College made a motion for non-suit and, after hearing submissions
from both parties, the Board granted the College's motion and
dismissed the grievance. The reasons for this ruling are as
follows: In the Board's view, the evidence does not indicate that
Mr. VanLeeuwen blamed the Grievor for her past absenteeism or
that any discipline was imposed. In fact, the evidence indicates
that Mr. VanLeeuwen's primary concern related to the Grievor's
attendance at an evening course in which she was not registered
and the Grievor appeared to acknowledge that it was appropriate
for Mr. VanLeeuwen to have questioned her regarding this matter.
Moreover, although the Grievor apparently viewed certain comments
made by Mr. VanLeeuwen as inappropriate, the evidence does not
disclose any violation of the collective agreement. For these
reasons, therefore, the grievance of Ms. Nienhuis was dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 21st day of April, 1997.
Chair
"Hu~h Gohn Cook"
"Jon D. McManus"
Union Nominee