The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-1074.Biron.90-08-14· '1~ ONTARIO EMPLOYES OE LA COURONNE ,,.~ ,, CROWN EMPLOYEE$ DEL'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS ~80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 - SUITE. 2100 TELEPHONE/T~L~PNONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG lZ$-BUREAU2100 (41~) 598-0685 1074/88 IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN ENPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLENENT BOARD BETWEEN CUPE (Biron) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Housing) : e~apioyer - and - T. Wilson Vice-Chairperson J. McNanus Member W. A. Lobraico Member ~ FOR Ting R. Carnovale GRIEVOR National Representative CUPE, Local 767 (Metro Toronto HoUsing Authority) FOR THE C. Osborne ENPLOYER Counsel Fraser & Beatt¥ Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: March 13, 1989 898761 DECISION THe grievor received a two-day suspension by letter dated February 4, 1988 for "blatant disregard towards your assigned duties." He grieves against that suspension. The grievor is an on-site caretaker with the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and is responsible for the buildings at 3181 and 3171Eglinton Avenue East. The text of the disciplinary letter written by the Distriot Housing Hanager, District 2,. set out the details of the grounds for discipline~ "iOn Sunday, January 31, 1988 the Senior Property Manager, Mrs. M. Barks, conducted a building inspection at Markham/Eglinton. "This inspection revealed that the building, especially 3181 Eglinton Avenue East, were in a deplorable condition and there was no 'evidence that anycleaning work had been done. "Mrs. Barks walked through the buildings twice in an effort to locate you and at 2,05 p.m. she finally attended at your a~artment~ and found you home. This was not your regularly scheduled break time. "As a r~sult, ~ have again neglected your assigned duties. On Kovembmr 25, 198~ you received a written reprimand and on November 8, 1987 ~ Deceived a one-day suspension for similar incidents. "I am~r no~ pregare~ to accept this type of blatant disregard rowans Y~Ur asslg~ed duties and the undue burden it places on your fellow employeeS. As well, the residents of the building should not be subjected to the unsanitary conditions noted by Mrs. Barks on Sunday, Januax¥ 31, 1988. "Consequently, you are hereby suspended for two (2) days, without pay, on T~esday, February 9, 1988 and Wednesday, February 10, 1988. 'Further incidents of this nature will not be tolerated and I expect your full cooperation in taking immediate corrective action in this regard." Mrs. Barks, the Senior Property Manager referred to in the letter testified at the hearing. She stated that the grievor was responsible' on that week-end. She inspected the building (3181 Eglinton Avenue East) t~at day because she had had recurring complaints from tenants that the building was dirty especially on week-ends. She and her staff ~instituted an inspection program as a result. At a maintenance meeting on December 2, 1987, the caretakers were informed of the inspection program. The staff were also then informed that Mr. John Sewell, the Chairman of the H.T.H.A. had been dissatisfied with the housekeeping condition of the buildings on a recent visit. Mrs. Barks arrived at 3181 Kglinton Avenue Cast 'and took the elevator to the top floor. She stated that she wended her way through the various floors and down the stairwells. She found ~hat 317[ ~.glinton Avenue East was in poor condition and that 3181 Eglinton Avenue East was hazardous to residents' safety. In 3181 there was garbage strewn t~roughout the hallways and the garbage disposal rooms were filled with garbage bags. On the sixth floor, it was piled several bags high; the elevators were dirty and the tile floors were sticky.' The elevator on the north side of the building smelt of · urine; all ~e s~fs were littered with garbage and there was a strong smell of urine... The sixth floor was dim because of burnt out lights. Mrs. Barks sta~ %ha% 'Zbmrm.had apparently been no cleaning done that day and she could not find the staff. After i~specting for about an hour, Mrs. Barks found the grievor in. his apar~aent about 2-.05 p.'m.. She could hear him and his wife inside their apartment and when Mrs. Biron opened the door, Ms. Barks could see the grievor sitting on a couch and drinking ~rom a. mug. The grlevor was entitled to a break between 2~30'and 2:45 p.m. Hrs. Barks requested the grievor to step into the hallway. She explained 5o him that she was upset with' the condition of the building and not being able to ~ind him. She testified that he replied, that of if was not in the building, he could be found in his apartment. She then stated that it was no break time and requested that he immediately attend ~o the building. He requested her to walk around the building with him and point out the areas of concern, but Mrs. Barks informed him of the areas o~ concern and that it was self-evident. She further informed him that further action would be taken. That evening, Mrs. Barks make notes which she then had typed a~d sent in to the District Housing Manager. In cross-exami~ation Mrs. Barks was asked .how the grievor =ould be contacted in an emergency. She replied that security would have %0 locate him a~d there is a Tenant Inquiry Board which' can be contacted by tenant. George Raso is the Senior Maintenance Supervisor and the ~rievor's immediate supervisor. He testified that he had never given permission to the grievor to go to his apartment at times other than scheduled breaks to check for messages. He also testified that on weekend duty, a caretak~ was supposed to clean up urine in elevators and lobbies as it could be a hazard. Garbage should be cleaned up and boxes removed if left by tenants. All of these varlou~ duties should be completed by 2500 p.m. ::'~he .gE~evor testified that on the day of the incident, after punchin9 in, he opened the laundry and garbage rooms rooms at 3181 ~.glint0n Avenue East and then s~lrted at the top of 3171 Eglinton East. After he had finished there he did 3181 Eglinton East and started there in the sixth floor. He testified that he damP-mopped and vacuumed. He' testified tha~ he was in his apartment at 2,05 to see if there were any telephone calls. He has an answering machine.. He stated that Mrs. Barks did not 'ask him whether he had done any work and he stated that he was not asked about all of the conditions. He said she said she had found garbaqe upstairs and seemed more outraged that he was in his apartment. He testified .he asked her to show him but she said' that she would talk aDout it next week. He testified that he told Mrs. Barks he was checking on telephone messages. The issue in the case is essentially one of credibility. I am satisfied that Mrs. Barks' testimony was both truthful and accurate. There was nothing to cause one to doubt her description of the s~ate of the two buildings. As she described the state of the buildings it is impossible accept that any real effort had been made by the grievor on January 31, 1988 to clean the buildings. The grie¥or's own testimony lacked credibility. There'~ was clearly .grounds for discipline. Given the griewor's previous disciplinary record, there can be no reason to intervene with th.,~ two-day suspension as the appropriate penalty. The grievance is dismissed. DAT~) at Toronto this 14 day of A~gust , 1990. J. McManus, Member W. Lobraico, Member