HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0542.Wickett et al.04-06-18 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2001-0542,2001-0559 2001-0560 2001-0561 2001-0831 2001-0908
UNION# 01F478 01C400 01C401 01C402,01B275 01B298
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Wickett et al ) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Natural Resources) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Don Eady PalIare Roland Rosenberg
RothensteIn LLP Barnsters and SOlICItorS
and
Enc O'Bnen, Gnevance Officer Ontano
PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER DavId Strang, ActIng AssocIate DIrector
Steve Patterson, AssocIate DIrector
Fateh SalIm and BenJamIn Parry Counsel,
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING Feb 10 11 20 25 26, May 16 June 5 6
July 17 18 Sept. 11 12, 16 17 18 Oct. 7 8
9 27 Nov 5 12,27 2003 Jan. 15 22,
Feb 26 March 2, 11 Apnl14 15 20
May 10 11 12 & 13 2004
2
DeCISIon
In June 2001 folloWIng an InVestIgatIOn Into the Inappropnate use of e-maIl by
employees, the Employer dIscharged SIX employees for contravemng the Workplace
DISCnmInatIOn and Harassment operatIng polIcy and the OperatIng Procedure on Usage ofI.T
Resources Other employees receIved lesser dIscIplIne, rangIng from letters of repnmand to
twenty day suspenSIOns The e-maIl accounts of the dIscIplIned employees contaIned sexually
explIcIt matenal The partIes agreed to first deal wIth the gnevances of the SIX dIscharged
employees ConcedIng that there was cause to dIscIplIne these employees, the Umon took the
posItIOn that the Employer dId not have Just cause to dIscharge them In the CIrcumstances
In a decIsIOn dated January 23 2003 whIch dealt wIth whether the dIscharges could be
sustaIned on the basIs of the Employer's best case, I concluded that dIscharge mIght be an
appropnate response for the SIX dIscharged employees At that stage of the proceedIng the
partIes dId not address mItIgatIOn Issues Subsequent to that decIsIOn and over many heanng
days, the partIes addressed whether the Employer had Just cause to dIscharge Mr J HastIe, Mr
R. Nadeau, Mr J Vallee, Mr L Wickett, Mr T Walmsely and Mr P CurtIS ("the gnevors")
In the alternatIve, the Employer took the posItIOn that I should exerCIse my dIscretIOn In favour
of awardIng the gnevors damages, rather than reInstatIng them, If I determIned that the
dIscharges were wIthout Just cause Counsel made theIr submIssIOns over a four day penod In
May 2004
3
I have revIewed the extensIve matenal, the oral testImony and the submIssIOns of
counsel Because the task ofwntIng a decIsIOn wIth reasons In thIS case wIll take some tIme, I
wIll provIde a "bottom lIne" deCISIOn at thIS tIme I had dIscussed thIS pOSSIbIlIty WIth the partIes
at the conclusIOn of the submIssIOns
It IS my conclusIOn that the Employer dId not have Just cause to dIscharge the gnevors
As part of the remedIal response I also find that the gnevors should be reInstated to employment
WIth the Employer AccordIngly I dIrect the Employer to forthWIth reInstate Mr HastIe, Mr
Nadeau, Mr Vallee, Mr Wickett, Mr Walmsely and Mr CUrtIS to employment. I wIll address
the Issue of what penalty should be substItuted for each dIscharge when the deCISIOn WIth reasons
IS released. I wIll remaIn seIzed to deal WIth any Issues the partIes may expenence In
ImplementIng thIS deCISIOn.
Dated at Toronto, thIS 18th day of June, 2004
~ert-Vice ' .