Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1545.Chiasson.90-11-01 ~ .... '";':---t'-J~ "_ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE I CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DIJNDAS STflEET WEST TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG 128 SUITE 2'00 TELEPHONElltl1PHONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST TORONTO. (ONTARIO) M5G lZ8 BIJREAU 2100 (41 B) 598.0688 1545/88 IN HI MATTER OJ' D ARBXTRA'l'IOlf Under TIlE CRaB IMPLOYBES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THI GRIEVANCB SBT'l'LBMBB'l' BOARD BBTWBEN OPSEU (Chiasson) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of Community & Social Services) Employer BEFORE: E. Ratushny Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member A. Merritt Member FOR TBE N. Coleman GRIBVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors POR THI S Patterson EMPLOYER Counsel Legal services Branch Ministry of community & Social Services BlARING: September 13, 1990 I ,(" 'g, - "" DECISION The Grievor is an Income Maintenance Officer in the Sudbury Office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Her work involves dealing with a caselead of financially needy clients and arranging fer financial and ether assistance in accordance with Ontario law. She is one of 21 such employees with three immediate supervisors who report to the Direct Services Manager. The Grievor's immediate supervisor is Dennis Oekenden and the Direct Services Manager is Peter Samborski. >. In April of 1986, she was assigned Case load #332. In October of 1987, she became concerned that the number of cases assigned to her was so excessive that it was not possible for her adequately to service her clients. The Grievor expressed this concern to her immediate supervisor at that time. On December 31, 1987, she sent a memorandum to that supervisor documenting the problem Her situation is summed up in the following paragraph: I am a hard, conscientious worker, who is well organized, able to priorize and logical. However, there are only 7 1/4 work hours in a day. HELP! She received a response dated January 26, 1988, which acknowledged "the excess workload that you and most of the other income T(\aintenance officers are carrying". The Grievor's "sincere and supreme effort" was also acknowledged. On February 5, 1988, the Grievor made a written request for "paid overtime for an unspecified number of hours" The response was that a request for "a specific reason and a specific number of hours" would be considered Howe,ver, the Grievor concluded from informal discussions that such a request would not be successful and she did not apply. The Grievor acknowledged that the relative allocation of cases to her and to other officers was equitable but I , .- )- I - 2 - expressed her opinion that a number of factors contributed to making her workload much heavier than those of her colleague::;. These factors included the thorough and conscientious manner in which she did her work, the type of clients and number of their dependents, the travelling distances and others The Grievor expressed her concerns once more in writing on May 16, 1988. In June she was assigned to other dutie:?l and Caseload 1332 was assigned to another Officer. It was assigned back to the Grievor in December of 1988 but the workload had not been reduced. On January 4, 1989 another memoran~um was sent to her supervisor requesting a reduction of her case10ad from approximately 350 cases to 250 cases as well as a setting out of priorities for her caseload She requested a meeting by January 11 and a written reply after the meeting The District Services Manager, Mr. Samborski was frank in I acknowledging the problem of workload levels. He testified that the problem was due to the increasing number of applications by clients togeth~r with his own inability to obtain funding from the Ministry for additional staff In December of 1988; he had. asked the three supervisors to conduct a review of the problem, including geographical size, composition of case load and alternative approaches (such as increasing the mail-out caseloag), and to I provide him with recommendations. Since they were aware of the I excessive workload, care was taken not to impose pressure upon the officers such as the setting of objectives to be met. I The Grievor was required to be in the office on Wednesdays and Thursdays when she would receive clients and return telephone calls On the other three working days, she would visit clients outside of the office If she wished to work away from the office -/ -~ - :\ - on a Wednesday or a Thursday, she was required to make a formal request and to receive authorization On Wednesday, January 11th, the Grievor had a heavy day of interviewing clients at the office. Her supervisor, Mr. Oekenden, had not yet responded to her memorandum of January 4th At 3:30 p.m., a client arrived whom the Grievor had reason to believe was potentially dangerous. At 4:45 p.rn , the end of her work-day, she had not yet reached him. In these circumstances, she went to Mr. Oekenden's office to see whether he would send the client away She also was upset and angry that the workload problem had not been addressed and stated that she would not be coming to work the next day as a result. Mr Oekenden responded that since the client had' been waiting so long, the Grievor should see him, which she did. No problems were encountered in this interview and the client left at 5.,05 p m However, when the interview concluded, the Grievor discovered that Mr. Oekenden had left for the day and she had been alone in the office with a potentially dangerous client. This accentuated her concern about the general security problem at the office in addition to the workload problem Nevertheless, she changed her mind about missing work the next day and decided to try one more time to see whether her concerns might be addressed. ,- On Thursday, January 12th, the Grievor attended work at the usual time However, at 10 30 a.m., she told Mr. Oekenden that the failure of management to take appropriate action regarding her caseload was affecting her health contrary to Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement and she left the office without approval (The Grievor did not pursue the Article 18 1 justification at the hearing and no evidence was presented with respect' to her health) j ~. ""'-- .t'" - 4 - Her counsel characterized her departure as having been triggered by her emotional response to the inaction on her legitimate complaints. The Manager, Mr. Samborski, was informed of these events when he returned to the office at 11:20 a.m. After consulting with the Ministry's Area Manager of Human Resources, he attempted to reach the Grievor by telephone and finally spoke with her at 12 20 p.rn He informed her that he was ordering her to return to her work duty, that her absence would be considered leave without permission and that her failure to return would be treated as an act of insubordination requiring disciplinary action. The Grievor denied that insubordination had been mentioned during this conversation. She stated that she already had decided to return to work at 1:00 p.m , following her lunch and informed Mr. Samborski of her decision. The Grievor returned to work at 1:00 p m At 1 50 p.m. Mr Samborski returned to the office and the Grievor attempted to discuss the problem of her workload with him. Mr Samborski informed her that he did not wish to discuss the matter at that time but merely wanted her to return to her work. He testified that when she came in to see him, she had her winter coat with her but the Grievor could not recall this. She testified that she had returned with the purpose of discussing her problem with Mr. Samborski and would not have returned if she had known that he would refuse to do so. She informed him that if he would not discuss the matter she would leave again Once more, he ordered her to return to her work duty a~d told her that if she failed to do so, her conduct would be treated :.~ - .. - :,) - as insubordination and disciplinary action would follow. The Grievor left the office at approximately 1:50 p.m. She testified that she worked on her files at home from 3 00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on that day. After further consultation with the Director of Human Resources, Mr. Samborski arranged for one-half day's pay to be withheld and for a letter of counsel to be placed on her file The Grievor seeks payment of the one-half day's pay which she did not receive on January 12th, together with lost credits or benefits and bank interest from that date. She takes the position that the Employer's failure to respond to her legitimate complaints precipitated her action so that the Employer must take some of the responsibility for her absence. She considers the failure to pay a full day's wages on January 12th to be excessive disciplinary action in all of the circumstances. The Employer takes the position that the payment of one- half day's wages for the day was appropriate since that was all she worked The work which she alleges to have done at home was not authorized since she was required to be in the office on January 12th and had not received permission to work at home. The deduction of pay was not disciplinary action but a response to her unauthorized absence. We agree with this submission. The Board has considerable sympathy for the work situation which the Grievorand her colleagues were facing A conscientious worker such as the Grievor would be particularly concerned about her inability to respond adequately to the needs of her clients and their dependents. After following regular procedures to draw the problem to the attention of her supervisor and to document it in "'I. .- - 6 - writing, she became frustrated by the absence of any apparent I reaction. She left the workplace to express her frustration and to attempt to generate a solution. At the same time, there is no doubt that her conduct was unauthorized She must bear the consequences of her "protest". She did not perform authorized work for at least one-half of the day in question and was not authorized to be absent. She is not entitled to be paid for the time when she was absent from her duties. She did have an alternative course of action, which was to grieve her problem. We understand that she now has done so. At the time of the incident in question, the Grievor was not aware that a general review of the workload problem had been initiated. It is regrettable that this was not communicated to her earlier since it might have alleviated her frustration However, we note that a meeting between income maintenance officers and her supervisor had been scheduled for the next morning, January 13th, at which the problem of workload was to be discussed. The grievance is dismissed. DATED at Ottawa this 1st day of November 1990. r: ~1 >- ~ )11-R-~ A. MBlUlI'rr, Member