Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-3017.Lloyd.94-03-22 ,- <41'1 ,.. ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE . SETTLEMENT . REGLEMENT . BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET !NEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO. ONTARIO, MSG IZ8 TELEPHONcITELEPHi:JNC 1416) 326-1388 180. RUEOUNpAS OUEST BUREAU 210p. TORONTO (ONTARIO) MSG IZ8 FACSIMILE /TElI~COPIE (416) 326-1396 / 30'17/92 IN THE, MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EJlPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT -, Before TlIE GRIEVANCE SETTLE;KENT BOARD BBTWEEN OPS1;:U (Lloyd) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (~inistry of Community & Social ServiceS) .- Employer BEFORE :. S. Tacon Vice-Chairperson E. Seymour Member D. Clark Member ~ FOR THE - G. Adams GRIEVOR Grievance Officer On~ario Public Service Em~loyees Union FOR THE J 0 sm.ith . BXPLOYB"R Counsel .Legal Services Branch -,., Ministry of Community & Social Services HEARING, October 27, 1993 January 11, 1994 February 2, 4, 1994 f' -"-" .- -...._~_...-.._".. .- .::' 1 DECISION This arbitration deals with a grievance filed by the union on behalf of the grievor, Geoff Lloyd, asserting that a three-day suspension was without just cause. The discipline followed an incident in February 1992. Many of the facts were not in dispute. Where there are conflicts in the evidence, the testimony of the witnesses called by the employ,er is preferred to that of the grievor. In assessing credibility, the ~ Board has considered the usual criteria. Having weighed and assessed the evidence, including the relative credibility of the ( witnesses in the context of the documentary material and what is reasonably probable in the circumstances, the Board makes' the following findings of fact. The grievor, classified as a residential counsellor II, has been an employee of the Southwestern Regional Centre for approximately seven years. The Centre is a ~esidential facility for persons with developmental handicaps of varying degrees. At the relevant time, thecjrievor was the case manager for an adult, developmentally handicapped individual who need only be referred to herein as "W". , "W", now in his early 30's, has lived in an institutional setting for many years. "W" is moderately retarded with a long history of autism ~nd agressi ve behaviour (such as pullil1Q hair, breaking glasses) but .is artistically gifted. The grievor had been "W"'s ) case manager for approximately two years. OUrinq that time, "W" I had committed only one "aggression" toward the grievor, i.e., a "hair pUll". In the grievor's view, "W" was intelligent enough to be able to carry on a simple conversation about what he had done that day, what events were coming up at the Centre" etc. In keeping with the genera '1 philosophy of encouraging a "normalization" of the client's lives through interaction with the ~~ / , ; 2 community, the grievor-had taken "W" on four or five outj,ngs On I one occasion, while shopping, "w" had attacked anoth~r staff member. It is useful at this juncture to identify the other persons primari ly invol ved- in this matter. Dr .Barrera is- 'the clinical director of the applied behav.i0ura1 analysis ("ABA-If) unit in which "w"resided and the grievor wo!:"ked. Joann~ Nevin, the supe~isor of the ABA uni t, was the grievor's immediate supervisor at the time. \ Maurice Jopes is the manager, ~inancial and administrative services. Colleen Wilson, a long time employee at the Centre, was manager of public relations. In May 1991, Wilson was notified ,by the office of the Public Trustee that "W" had received a bf?!quest from his mother's estate. "Wit had been deemed incompetent to handle -his financial 1iffairSi - those were the responsibility of the Public Trustee. Wilson was informed that the 'Centre would have to aEply to the Public Trustee for access to the funds bequeathed to "W"~, Such matters_ are dealt with-on a case-by case basis in accordance wi~ proce~ures s~t by the PUblic Trustee. Wilson informed, Barrera of the bequest and requested a list be prepared of items which "W" could use or wanted'. B~rrera resp'onded that he would meet with the grievor. Subsequently, Barrera asked the grievor to prepare 8c list of items whi ch ",",," could use and which would improve his quality of life. - Barrera also reviewed "W"'s file to determine whether "W" had ( . ( recently committed an "aggression" (also referred to as a -...-J . "behaviour") which resulted in his being grounded, i.e., precluded from participating in activities off the ward. "W" haq been free 9f any aggression for at least a-week. In a telephone conversation with Wilson, "BaXTera expressed the view that it was appropriate for "W" to accompany the grievor on the outing. Wilson, who knew "w" -- .. --"_..,, ---- ---.._..~_.~ .- 3 and considered that he was high functioning and able to select articles for purchase, agreed Barrera indicated that he would discuss the matter further with the grievor. In Barrera's view, the grievor was well aware that "w" would participate in every possible community outing. During a staff meeting, however, the grievor waS specdfical,.lY reminded that "w" i was ,to go on the shopping trip to participate in selecting the / purchases. Because of concern that "W" might act out during the shopping expedition, arrangements were m~de to h~ve another staff member (Jobn Abrosimoff) along as well. ,- The grievor went through some store catalogues with "W" to select a number of items. An inital list, totalling approximately $5,000 waf; prepared and forwarded to Wilson. Wilson spoke with the grievor by telephone during this period to explain the bequest process. The grievor indicated that, as "W" work,ed on the farm, he could use a warm coat. wilson also a~ked that ~~e list be prioritized. Shortly thereafter, a revised list was prepared by the grievor, consisting of eleven j.tems ranked ~n order of priority. The estimated I cost of the .i tems , taken from the catalogue, was indicated; the total, including taxes, came to $2,574.40. - Wilson forwarded- ,the revised list to the Public Tru,stee's office wi th a covering letter requesting the funds so that the items could be purchased. In October 1991, Wilson was notified that a cheque in an amount corresponding to tlJ,e cost of the it;ems listed had been recei ved and deposited in the trust fund set up for "W". Each resident of the Centre has a trust fund at a local bank of \ approximately $300. Wilson contacted'the grievor by telephone. She explained that the monies requested had been deposited and_ the Public Trustee had approved .the purchases of the listed items. She indicated to the . 4 grievor that the best route for him' to follow would be to pick. out \ the items at the various stores and bring back the invoices which were to be presented to the -accounting office~ cheques could then be made out directiy to the suppliers. wilson suggested the grievor also contact the ~ccounting office regarding any further instructions, given the considerable sum of money involved. wilson confirmed her instructions to the grievor in writing, i.e,. that the Public Trustee- wanted receipts for the purchases and the grievor was to submit a copy of the invoices as soon as the purchases were completed. Attached to the, memo was a copy of the letter fr9m the Public Trustee approving the purchases of the listed items and a copy of the list of items to be purchased (as revised by the grievor and approved by the Public Trustee). The qrievor met with his immediate supervisor"Nevin, on February 19, 1992 to complete a ,requisition for personal need~ allowance ("PHA n) funds. The usual procedures required the completion of the form by the immediate supervisor; normally, the supervisor would pick up the funds from accountir1Cl for the employee- who was to PQrchase the goods.. As Nevin was going on vacation and the grievor expressed a wish to do the shopping the following week, she requested the monies .for February 28 so the funds would be available i~ediately on her return. The $2,700 represented a I large amount of money compared with the usual I sums requisitioned from FNA accounts for shopping. " 1.11 her discussion with the grievor, Nevi~conf irmed that the grievor had the list of-- items for purchase as approved by the Public Trustee. The grievor indicated that he and his wife were planning to window shop and piCk out items' for purchase during his upcoming four day weekend. Nevin informed the grievor that, if a bed was purchased, a mattress would not be needed as the Centre's mattresses fit most standard beds and were CSA approv~d. Nevin testifi$dthat she would not normally give final instructions until the monies were actualiy available on her return from vacation. It - - ~ - - -- ~ - --- ----- --- ,- 5 was Nevin's understanding that the grievor was to have taken lIW" shopping for the goods accompanied by another staff mem~er (John Abrosimoff) in case "W" became aggressive. i Nor was there any doubt that the items on the list were to be purchased. Nevin acknowledged that, on occasion in the past, staff could purchase small items without a requisition and be 13ubsequently reimbursed from the PNA account. Such a sequence for a transaction was not normal, however. Barrera, as well, had indicated to the grievor that the list was to be followed in making the purchases. ( In fact, on her return, Nevin was advised that the grievor had I I completed the purchases and the receipts had been forwarded to Wilson. " Prior to Nevin's return, Barrera was informed that the Public TrUStee had approved the release ~ of funds and the grievor had requested the monies in cash. Barrera contacted accounti~g as he 1 had concerns about the grievor's carrying such a large sum. "- Several alterna~ives were discussed, including a cashier's cheque and the issuing of cheques' payable directly to the stores upon presentation of receipts. It was agreed that the grievor should receive approximately $200 to $400 in cash to take on the shopping trip with "Wn so that "W" could choose some items at the last ~ minute.. Barrera arranged with an accounting clerk to pick up the funds. - The next day, however, the grievor informed Barrera that he [the grievor] had already made the purchases and given the bill for the items to Wilson. Barrera was somewhat taken aback at this but assumed that Nevin (as ward supervisor) and Wilson had agreed to the format used. Barrera was also disappointed that the grievor had not taken"W" on the Shopping trip, despite his [Barrera's] insistence that "W" go on the outing. The grievor, shortly thereafter, called Barrera, indicating that accounting would not release the monies without his [Barrera's] siqnat~re. Barrera did . . -- - '" ~ ) , 6 pick up the c~sh . envelope which was stapled shut in the l.n an presence .of the accounting clerk and handed over by Barrera to the grievor. The grievor testified that he took the cash home after completing his shift and left it there. What had happened was that the grievor had gone shopping with his wife to Wallacebur~ during his time off. He visited a furniture store and viewed a floor model of a solid oak bedroom suite (includinq bed, mattress and box spring, dresser and drawer hutch w~th mjrror) and stereo. The grievor felt that "W"would like the I i items and the quality was goC[)d. - The grievor testified that 'he explained the circWl!Stances of the purchase to the salesperson. The grievor indicated that the monies would be ava~lable' February 28. In the interim, the grievor gave the _salesperson three, ! personal, post-dated cheques with instructions to ~ash the first \ i cbeqq.e, dated March 5 or 6, if he [the qrievorJ had not returned , with the money by then. The other cheques were dat.ed two and four weeks thereaft~r. Arrangements were made for; dell very of the furni t;ure. --- wilson was presented with a copy of an invoice for a "bedroom suite, bo~ spring ~pd mattress, deluxe frame and Toshiba stereo" in the amount of $2,,700 in total., indicatiJ'l9 "cash paid in full". Wilson refused to approve the receipt as, in 'her view, that did not confirm with what the Public Trustee had 'instruct-ed her to do. The invoice did not show an detailed listin9 of the gooQS purchased and ,did not include' the items on the list appr9ved- by the "Public Trustee. Wi~son "j approached Lloyd. Jackson (the Centre's first administrator) with her concerns and was referred -to Jones, the manager of financial and admini~trative services. i wilson then contacted Jones with her concerns regarding the transaction, pointinq out that the items stipulated on the list approved by the Public Trustee had not been purchased and the entire funds had been spe~t. Jones contacted the store and spoke ------- -- - - - - - - --.- -- --- - .. .__._--.~ \.. 7 with the salesperson (Mel Murphy) . Jones explained the circumstances of the bequest and that the Centre had to follow the directions of the Public Trustee with respect to the disbursement of the funds. After some discussion, the sale was cancelled. Jones raised the matter of a refund as the bill had beert marked "pcHd in cash II . Jones learned that, in fact, the grievor had not p~id in cash but with three, post-dated, personal cheqJes. ) Jones made furtber enquiries of Wilson, Barrera and the manager of a~coQntin9. to confirm that theigrievor ha~ received the monies from the business office. A meeting was convened to have the grievo~ give an account of the disposition of the funds. Present at the meeting were Barrera, wilson, Jones, the manager of accounting and the grievor. Jones asked the grievor why he spent the monies as he did, purchasinqonly two of the items from the approved list. The~ grievor responded -that he had seen the bedroom suite while shopping ~ with his wife and concluded "W" would like the items. Jones asked how the grievor had paid for the goods. The grievor responded "in cash" but that if the Centre was dissatisfied with the transaction, he could have it cancelled and obtain a refund. Jones stated that he had already been in touch with the store and the sale had been cancelled,. Jones stated that he had beTn informed that the grievor had not paid in- cash but. with three post-dated personal cheques from the grievor. The grievor conceded that he had used post-dated cheques to pay for the items and explained that he and his wife lived frompaycheque to paycheque. The dates on the post-dated / cheques (as noted supra) corresponded with the pay dates of the Centre. The meeting ended with a direction that the grievor immediate~y return the monies to the accounting department cashier. The funds were, in fact, returned. Following the return of the funds, two other staff members accompanied "W" on a shopping trip. The eleven items on the ) < , .__."~~- I - " , ~ 8 approved list were purchased. In addition; several other inexpensive items were bought, includi.ng sheets, pqtting soil, tools to work in the flower beds and binoculars~ The invoices were forwarded' to the Public Trustee. Subsequently, Jones had fUrther discussioI1s with the Legal, services Branch and the police regarding the transaction. Thes~ matt~rs are ~ not relevant to the issue before the Board. Further, pursuant to the introduction by the Ministry of the personal needs allowance part of family benefits allowances which persons without funds may receive, the Centre modi,fi~d its policy I regarding trust funds to put in place more stringent,cohtrols. The changes followed', but were .not the result of, the in$tant case. Given that bequests, were infrequent, there were no significant changes to the procedures in connection with the Publ,ic Trustee, and bequests. That is, the Public Trustee must ~pprov~. purchases and reqUires an accounting' as to how the funds were disbursed. I ' While the Board has indicated its factual finding,s, it is useful at this point to 'summarize thegri.evor's ~xplanations f.9r his conduct. 'The grievor d,enied that he had been instructed to take"Wn on the shopping trip and had not done so for several r~asons, including the timing of the shoppinq trip with his wife, own,s unpredictable nature and that nW" 'would not be able to comprehend what items were to be ~urchased or ,why. The grievor i~dicated that he h~d not intended to purchase the items before entering the store and had gotten carried away with the sales pitch. In the grievor's own words, he had exercised bad jUdgment and would not handle a similar situation in that way again. However,1 while he had forgotten the list at home, the grievor stated that he regarded the list as a guideline only. In the grievor's view, he,~ad not been instructed to' adhere to the list in his purchases and had bought the most important items. Further, given the quality of the items, they would be resistant to abuse by "Wn or his room-mate. The grievor ._u ~ _MM. ~~."'-'.'~'" <<~__~ M._..'-_..._ __ < .,. 9 testified that he intendeg to hand over the cash to 'the salesperson as soon as it was obtained and have the three post-dat~d cheques returned. The. grievor stated that he had. requested the $2;700 in cash rather than a cheque to avoid receiving interest on ~he funds during the period between the .deposit of the cheque in his bank account and the processing of the cheque. In the grievor's opinion, he did not have the opportunity, at the meeting with Jones and others, to explain. the transaction and his use of the term "cash". The submissions of the' parties are next briefly summarized. Counsel for the employer reviewed the evidence in support of his submission that the grievor had been instructed to purchase the items on the list approved by the Public Trust.e~ and to take "w" on the Shopping trip but had not done so. The grievor, it was argued, intended to utilize the monies for his own benefit in some fashion, had contravened established policies and ,procedures and, when confronted, concealed.-the manner in which payment for the goods had been made. Counsel reviewed the testimony of the grievor and the employer's witnesses, arguing that the testimony of the latter was credible and corroborated. In contrast, the grievor was described as not credible in his testimony in severalk~y,are~s, includin';J instructions to take "W" shopping, to purchase the items o~ the list and that the grievor was denied an oppor~unity to explain his conduct. Counsel contended that. the grievor had been suspended for the reasons outlined in the disciplinary letter of May 28, 1992. It was argued that. the evidence supported the imposition of discipline and the penalty, even if there had been no actual misappropriation of funds, was appropriate for the other misconduct. Counsel asked that the grievance be dismissed. Cases cited in support included: Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor COJ'ttrol Board) (File No. 169/82, unreported, August 19, 1982) (referred to as the "Zapp" case), Crown in Right of Ontario. (Liquor Control B08l'dl (File No. 0963/86, ~nreported, october 5, 1987) ~ ;p _'~_h_.~ 10 (referred to as the "Fawcett" case). The union's representative submitted that the empl.oyer was 1 imi ted, with respect to the grounds for discipline, to those outlined in the disciplinary letter. The appropriate test to b~ applied, it , was argued, was the :balance of probabilities, with an inc~ease in the standard in conjunction with the gravity of the penalty. The union's representative cont~nded tha~ the three day suspension had serious consequences for the grievor's reputation and future / employment opportunities. As to insubordination, it was submitted that the instant circumstances did not satisfy the requirements in the jurisprudence that the order be clearly communicated by someone in authority. The evidence was r~viewed in some detaii. It was argued that the grievor was not directed to take "W' shopping, was not directed to purchase the items on the list and was not instructed with regard to the proper procedures for payment. The union's representative asserted that the grievqr was a credible;! witness' and, further , the employe+, had fai1ed to c;::a1l corroborating witnesses and, thus, ansdverse inference. should be qrawn from tnat failure. It was submi tted, the.rewas no evidence the grievor intended to personally benefit from the transaction. The' union's representa~ive noted that the grievorconceded poor judgment in his conduct but contended that did not constitute insubordin~tion. In particular, it was 'emphasized that ~here was no challenge to managerial authority and no negative impact on other employees arising from the grievor's behaviour. The change in procedures following 'the incident was stJ.:'essed. In summary, the union"s representative urged that the grievance .be allowed or, in the alternative, the disciplinary penalty should be redu~ed. The union's representative sought to distiguish those cases cited by employer counsel and referred to a number of authorities in support: city of Edmonton (1985), 23 L.A.C. (3d) 84 ( Thomas) : Government of the Province of Alberta (Department of Social Services and community Health) (1983), 10 L.A.C. (3d) 119 (Larson); - i' _.~- '" -~.~.-.".. " .. 11 Baton Broadcasting Ltd. (1966) , 17 L.A C. 180 (Reville)~ Northern Pigment Co. Ltd. (1962), 12 L.A.C. 203 (Lane); Re:sthaven Memorial Gardens (1981), 2 L.A.C. (3d) 146 (ILD. Brown) ; Mount Sinai Hospital (1978), 17 L.A.C. (2d) 242 (Brandt); Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co. (19'68 ).., 23 L.A.C. 293 (Weatherill); Town of Gravenhurst (1979), 22 L.A.C. (2d) 41 (Linden); Holland Hitch of Canada Ltd. (1972), 23 L.A.C. 378 (Brandt); Crown in Riqht of ontario (Ministry of Consumer & Commercial Relations) (File No. 948/85, unreported, March 8, 1988) (referred to as the "Lawrence" case); Crown in Ri9ht of Ontario (MinistrY of Correccional Services) (File No. 1492/89, unreported, January 29, 1991) (referred to as the "HayfC?rd" case). In reply, employer coun~el disagreed with the assertion that the employer had failed to call the appropriate witnes~es-to establish its case, responding tn some detail to the specific names mentioned. The Board has carefully reviewed the jurisprudence cited by the parties. While 'the Board does not disagree with the. principles enunciated therein, the Board does not regard it as necessary to engage in a lengthy exposition of the cases. The factual context of those cases is sufficiently distinct from the instant case that I only the brief references noted below are needed. I The Board agrees that the appropriate test is a balance of ~robabilities and with the analysis in City of EdmontoD. supra, in referring to earlier ju~isprudence as to the flexibility of that concept "commensurate with the gravity 'of the conduct alleged and the seriousness of the consequences to follow if the allegations are proved" (at p. 86 of that decision). In the instant case, the discipline imposed is a three-day suspension for insubordination, that is, for failure to comply with directions and established procedures. This stands in contrast to the far more severe discipline, generally discharge, imposed on the grievors in most of the cases referred to in support of ~~e union's positio~. -\ r"'" I <j f I? Nonetheless, the Board.has considered the evidence ~n light of the jurisprudence noted above. The Board has .set out its findings of fact which reflec~ its assessment of the. relative credibility of the witnesses and those findings need not be repeated in detail The Board is not persuaded that the employer failed" as submitted by the union's representative, to call certain persons as witnesses who were necessary to corroborate the employer's case. In the Board's view, the employer called sufficient evidence to discharge its onus of establishing that there was just cause for discipline - ' I The Board is satisfied that the grievor received clear instructions that "W'" was to accompany the gr i evor (along with another staff member) on the shopping trip and, further, that the gr~evor was to I purch~se items in accordance with th~ list which had been approved by the Public TrUstee,. The Board is not persuaded, given the circumstances in which the list was compiled, reviseg, approved by the Public Trustee, and forwarded to the grievor with a 'memorandum from Wilson, that the list was a mere "guideline". --- with respect to the inst~ctions that "W" accompany the grievor on the shopping expedition, the Board agrees with the comments in I Mount Sinai Hospital. supra, to the effect that t~e concept of "orders" or "directions" must be meas~red ~gainst the setting involved. In that instance, it was recoqnized that, iil dealing wi th professionals, instructions are not likely to be, and need not be, as direct and blunt as, p$rhaps, on the shQp floor. In the instant case, Barrera raised the issue of "W" going on the shopping expedition at a staff meeting in the grievor's presence. The response that another staff member would go along as well, given of I W"'s history aggressive behaviour on occasion, is cogent ,i evidence that there was no doubt that "w" was to be taken on the outing. Further, such a direction was consistent with the :philosophy of the facility, as attested to by the g.;rievor himself, and, indeed, the grievor had; on several- prior instances, taken "W" On outings. "" ,<- --_..~.,-_. I ( '" 13 As to a direction that the items on the list be purchased and I proper invoices be provided for the goods purchased, the Board finds that Wilson's conversation and memorandum to the grievor " J , .. While cannot reasonably be lnterpreted other than as lnstructlons Wilson was not the grievor's supervisor in the. context of the functioning of the ward, Wilson was a member of senior management and the person with whom the grievor was dealing in regard to the list of goods to be purchased. The ingredients essential to sustain a findi~g of insubordination include proof that an order was given and was clearly communicated to the employee by someone with the proper authority and that the employee actually refused to comply: see Government of Alberta, supra, and the references therein. The Board has already expressed its view that the first two elements are established on the evidence. The third element, however, requires further consideration. The letter of discipline dated May ~8., 1992 refers to the circumstances in which three post-dated personal cheques were given to the store salesperson, dated on consecutive pay days. The ~etter goes on to note the failure of the grievor to frankly respond to questions about the transaction. In the Board's view, , the grievor's response of "cash" when ~sked how he paid for the goods was less than forthright. It is not difficult to understand how the employer concluded that the grievor apparently intended to personally benefit from the transaction. The Board, however, is satisfied that the grievor was most candid when he testified that he had not intended to purchase the goods on the day in question, that he had planned to merely window shop and "got carried away. with the sales pitch". That said, there can be no other conclusion but that the grievor did not comply with the directions which he was given. The grievor had to have known that he was not purchasing the items on the list, as directed, and, later, was not submitting proper invoices, again as instructed. Obviously, the ~ . ~ - f .. ~ 14 grievor knew tha.t he was making the purchases wi thouti,Wu Thus, while the grievor did not set out to violate his instructions, his conduct cannot ~easonably be characterized as othe~ than a failure to comply with those directions. Thus, the requisite third element is established. The Board has concluded that the grievor was insubordinate and that his conduct warrants discipline. The Fawcett, supra" anc~ Zapp. supra, cases are regarded as useful refel;"ences. It must be ( stressed, however, that the discipline involved in tho~e cases was I discharge: the arbitration awards resulted in the reinstatement of the individual put subj~ct to significant discipline (of two months and si~ months respectively). The lesser penalty ~reflected the arbitration board's recognition of mitigating circumstances. In the instant case, the discipline imposed is a three-day suspension. - That stands in stark contrast with the d~sciplinary penalty in Fawcett. . supra, and Zapp. supra, and, indeed, wi thmost of the cases cited 'by the parties. Given the penalty involved in the instant case and given the -Board's finding that ~he grievor disrega~ded instructions with respect to three. matters (taking nw" shopping, purchasing al~ the items on the list and submitting a proper invoice'), the Board must be very cautious about using its undoubted authority to substitute another penalty. The Board does no~ consider that the circumstances warrant a diminution of the penalty imposed. The three day suspension stands. However, the Board does regard it as appropriate to. note one other matter. The Board finds that the grievor's statement to Jones that he and his wife "live from paycheque to paycheque" disclosed the grievor's intention, once he had committed to the purchase, to use the cash as a "buffer". That is, it is reasonably probabl~ in the circumstances to conclude that the grievor regarded the cash, once obtained from the facility's business office, as a.safeguard in case he ran short in his personal finances. In the grievor's mind, there was no personal benefit from the money in that the cost of -- - -~~-~ --~'"~-'~."_.~--' --..>.-...- ..-- --:~"-~--':.._--J .. ( ';; 15 the goods was covered by the post-dated cheques and the cash itself was kept at his home and not deposited i~ an account where interest would be earned. Given the nature of the facility and its - residents, the obligation to handle the monieso,f those residents in an appropriate manner is manifest While the grievor's conduct fell short of the s~andard on this occasion and he was properly- disciplined for his misconduct, the Board does think it useful to note its conclusion that there was no pre-meditated scheme to personally benefit from the funds bequeathed to "W". For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds ~hat the grievor was disciplined for just cause and there is no reasonable basis on which to interfere with the penalty imposed. Accordingly, this grievance is dismissed. DATED this 22nd of March, 1994. I ~ J' .--. - . Susan Tacon, qice-Cbairperson ~/4 . Ed Seymour,- Union Member :A~ ~ j Don Clark, Employer Member