Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChouinard 17-09-28IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT BETWEEN: COCHRANE TEMISKAMING RESOURCE CENTRE (“the Employer”) AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 664 (“the Union”) GRIEVANCE OF EDITH CHOUINARD OPSEU No. 2015-0664-0025 AWARD ARBITRATOR: BARRY STEPHENS FOR THE EMPLOYER: EMPLOYER COUNSEL: GEOFF JEFFERY, Weaver Simmons FOR THE ASSOCIATION: UNION COUNSEL: DAN HALES, OPSEU Regional Grievance Officer HEARINGS HELD IN TIMMINS ON JANUARY 26, MARCH 21 & 22, 2017 AND BY CONFERENCE CALL ON APRIL 18, 2017 A W A R D Introduction [1] The grievor received a seven-shift suspension for an incident that occurred on November 23, 2015. The employer provides services and programs for people with developmental disabilities. One such service is Government Road Home, which is a residence for adult clients. The grievor was a Personal Support Worker assigned to Government Road. On the day in question she became involved in an incident involving a resident, who shall be referred to throughout this award as M. The employer alleges that the grievor mishandled the situation and caused an incident that was potentially dangerous for M, other residents and for staff. The union responds that the grievor engaged in a reasonable exercise in judgment and discipline was not warranted. In the alternative, the union argued that, even if she erred, the discipline imposed was excessive. The grievor was subsequently terminated because of another incident. The parties have asked for a ruling on the suspension grievance prior to litigating the termination grievance. Evidence Collette Fortier [2] Colette Fortier is the Residential Supervisor at Government Road. She described the residents at the house as tending to self-abusive behaviour, aggression with staff and other clients, and property destruction. She also described M as being at the highest level of frequent behaviour issues, stating that he becomes agitated most days, 2 especially around meals. She confirmed that it was not uncommon for M to bend utensils, and that the behaviour was defined as a lower-level agitation indicator in M’s Behaviour Support Plan (BSP). The BSP contains information for staff with respect to the clients, including diagnosis, medication information, challenging behaviours and directions on how to best relate and respond to the client. The purpose of the BSP is to establish consistency of approach working with individuals. The staff are expected to review the plans often in order to have a better understanding and expert guidance on how to relate to each resident. [3] With respect to the incident that led to the discipline of the grievor, Fortier testified that she was meeting with Gord MacKay in the basement office at Government Road when they heard noise upstairs. Such noise was not unusual at the home, but as it became louder she and MacKay decided to go investigate. When she arrived upstairs she discovered M displaying signs of agitation, trying to pull a fire extinguisher from the wall, and kicking the wall. She heard M asking for a spoon. She took control of the situation, and ordered the grievor to take some other clients out. Fortier took M outside and he began to ask for a spoon again. He was still agitated. She took him back inside. M was given his lunch and a spoon. He settled down and ate his lunch, and the incident was over. Her part in the event had lasted ten to fifteen minutes. [4] She discussed the incident later with Sabrina Beaulieu, who was working the shift, and asked her to fill out a Critical Incident Report. The next day she also spoke to MacKay and the grievor. Beaulieu and MacKay both told her that the grievor had 3 refused to give M a spoon because he had bent a fork. The grievor told her that M became upset when given a fork by accident and began to try to do damage to the house. She stated she did not want to give him a spoon as she was concerned that he would use it as a weapon. She denied withholding the spoon as a consequence for misbehaviour. [5] Fortier stated that imposing a consequence on M for bending the fork was the opposite of the strategy outlined in M’s BSP. In general, the approach the employer takes with clients is not punitive but relies only on “natural consequences” as would be the case with any other adult. She agreed that the grievor was “client-focussed” and enjoyed taking residents for outings in the community. Fortier described her working relationship with the grievor as “fairly good”, and testified that she had spent “a lot of time” supporting her so that she could succeed in the workplace. Fortier testified that the grievor had never spoken to her about a lack of support in the workplace [6] Fortier agreed in cross-examination that the grievor had been called upon frequently to translate for M, but added that she had counselled the grievor not to translate all of M’s words because sometimes she had translated improper things that M had said and it led to problems. Sabrina Beaulieu [7] Sabrina Beaulieu is a Residential Counsellor who was working at Government Road on the day of the incident. She had only been working for the employer for a 4 short time in a relief capacity, and had only worked a few shifts previously at Government Road. She testified that the grievor handed her the lunch plates and she (Beaulieu) then distributed the food to the residents seating at the dining table. M approached the kitchen half-door where Beaulieu was standing, showed her the fork and asked for a spoon. Beaulieu turned to the grievor, who was inside the kitchen, but the grievor said M would have to wait. M repeated his request for a spoon and he took the fork and bent it against the railing by the half-door. Beaulieu described M’s mood at this point as “whiny”, and she asked him for the bent fork, which he gave to her. Beaulieu then showed the bent fork to the grievor, who then said that since M had “done that” he would wait for his spoon. M was close enough to overhear, and he became very agitated. He grabbed an empty cup from the table and threw it. At that point Beaulieu went to get M’s medication. While she was getting the medication, MacKay came upstairs. M went to MacKay to ask again for a spoon. M took the medication when it was offered by Beaulieu. MacKay went to get a spoon from the kitchen counter. The grievor then showed MacKay the fork and said, “Look what he did to the fork, he is not getting a spoon.” Again, M was close enough to hear what was going on and he became very upset, and started kicking walls and moving chairs trying to pick them up. He also engaged in self abusive behaviour by biting himself. At that point Fortier came upstairs and took control of the situation. The grievor took some other residents out and Beaulieu and the others went into the kitchen. M sat down at the dining table and continued to ask for a spoon. Fortier gave him a spoon, warmed his food and then he calmed down and ate his meal. 5 [8] Beaulieu testified that later that day she spoke to the grievor about the incident, stating that it would have been a better idea just to give M the spoon. She stated that the grievor responded in a sarcastic voice, “Sure, we should just give him everything he wants.” Later she also overheard the grievor speaking to Alexandra Freedman, the psychometrist, and understood that the grievor was blaming her, Beaulieu, for giving M the fork. Beaulieu later had a chance to tell Freedman her version of events. She testified that she should have given the spoon to M earlier but that she felt she should not contradict the grievor in front of the clients. Alexandra Freedman [9] Alexandra Freedman works as a psychometrist for the employer. She testified that the BSP’s are intended to be used to support strategies that decrease challenging behaviour and encourage good social behaviour on the part of clients. The goal is to encourage maximum quality of life and freedom of choice for clients. She stated that medication is a “last resort”, and is sometimes referred to as a “chemical restraint.” [10] Freedman emphasized that the key element of the approach with M is that staff should not get into a power struggle with him. She testified that it would be better to give him what he asks for, within reason. Freedman confirmed that it was common for M to bend utensils, and that this was typically a sign of lower-level frustration. It would not be helpful to comment on this activity or impose any kind of penalty, since that could only lead to more serious problems. Freedman also testified that a bent utensil was a “very low priority” when compared with other behaviours that were being 6 targeted. She stated that M has very low tolerance for waiting and that any request he makes should be responded to quickly. Colleen Taylor [11] Colleen Taylor is the Director of Client Services. She was responsible for the ultimate decision to discipline the grievor. She stated her reasons for imposing the discipline were that the grievor had acted disrespectfully towards M, that she imposed a consequence on M when she should not have done so, and that she denied M a simple request for a spoon multiple times. She characterized the grievor’s actions as an “egregious violation” of M’s rights and dignity. Taylor also concluded that the grievor had not been forthright in her description of the incident after the fact, and that her actions had put her co-workers and other clients at risk. Taylor testified that the grievor missed multiple chances to de-escalate the conflict with M, but failed to do so. She also reached the conclusion that the grievor required a serious penalty to bring home the message that her behaviour was unacceptable and to underscore the employer’s expectations. [12] Taylor confirmed that it was her understanding that the best course of action in the circumstances would have been to give M a spoon so that he could eat his lunch. She also questioned the grievor’s credibility in that her assertion that M would use the spoon for a weapon was belied by the fact that he had handed over the fork to Beaulieu when requested, and that he had calmed and returned to eating his meal once he was provided with a spoon. 7 Gord MacKay [13] Gord MacKay is an Assistant Residential Counsellor. He was meeting with Fortier in the basement office at the time of the incident. He heard some noise and decided to investigate. When he got up to the ground floor he saw M standing by the table, and there was a dish of food in front of him. He looked “agitated” and he asked MacKay for a spoon. MacKay went to the kitchen and asked the grievor for a spoon. He said the grievor held up the bent fork and indicated that M would not be getting a spoon. M witnessed this exchange and MacKay testified that M’s level of agitation went “full blown and out of control.” At that point, Fortier had arrived and began to take control over the events, and she asked the grievor to take some of the clients out of the house. MacKay testified that it was his opinion that, had M been provided with a spoon, he would have de-escalated quickly. Edith Chouinard [14] The grievor, Edith Chouinard, was hired in 2002, and worked as an Assistant Residential Counsellor. She began working at Government Road house in May 2015 and testified that it was an environment that kept her “mentally and physically” on her toes at all times, and that M was more challenging than other clients. She described M as violent, unpredictable and volatile. She stated that they both spoke French as their first language, that this was a source of a bond between them and that she often was called upon to translate for M. 8 [15] With respect to the incident on November 23, the grievor testified that the incident unfolded while she had her back turned in the kitchen. When she was asked in examination-in-chief what had prompted the incident, she replied, “Not that I want to blame anybody, I think staff in the dining room [Beaulieu] knew what was going on while I had my back turned.” She testified that the first she knew of the incident she heard a lot of swearing behind her, and she turned to see Beaulieu with the bent fork. She stated that at that moment she thought that she could not give M a spoon. She alleged that Beaulieu repeatedly said that she did not know want to do and that Beaulieu “froze.” When she told Beaulieu that they could not give M a spoon, the grievor testified, Beaulieu immediately agreed. She stated that at this point M was shaking the cupboard, kicking the fire extinguisher and he threw what she later found out was a cup. [16] Chouinard stated that at this point she was wondering why MacKay had not come upstairs. He arrived shortly after. She said that her memory was not clear what happened at that point because Fortier also arrived, and she immediately began issuing instructions. The grievor stated that she then told Fortier she would take out the other clients, and Fortier agreed. The grievor testified that she was in such a state of shock that she did not like the fact that she was required to drive the other clients to another location, and that someone ‘fresh’ should have taken the other clients out. 9 Employer Submissions [17] The employer submitted that the evidence supported the allegations of misconduct contained in the letter of suspension, and argued that the role of an arbitrator is such a circumstance should not be to second guess the employer’s disciplinary response but to assess whether the penalty was within a reasonable range of disciplinary responses. The employer is best able to assess the appropriateness of the specific penalty based on the workplace and the need to ensure that vulnerable clients like M are protected. [18] The employer argued that the grievor had treated M “like a child”, and imposed consequences in direct contradiction to the employer’s Support Policy and Restrictive Procedures, which requires that staff always choose the most positive and least intrusive means of resolving any situation. The employer submitted that it became necessary to use a chemical restraint in order to calm M, and that this was a direct result of the grievor’s decision not to use appropriate de-escalation techniques, while dissuading other staff from doing so. [19] The employer argued that Government Road is the most challenging environment of all its facilities, and that M is the most challenging resident. In addition, the employer relied on the fact that utensil bending was an identified behaviour with respect to M, and that it was categorized as a Level 1, or lowest level, of his behaviour issues in his Behaviour Support Plan and the Person Centred Plan. In addition, the plans clearly stipulated that the general strategy in dealing with M’s behaviour is to agree to 10 his requests in the absence of some compelling reason to refuse. There was no compelling reason in this case. It is part of the grievor’s duties to maintain awareness of the plans. Thus, the grievor had or should have had specific and clear direction on how to react in the situation that arose on the day in question. Rather than follow this direction, the grievor adopted a different approach and unnecessarily escalated M’s behaviour, putting him and others at risk. She imposed a penalty on him for what she deemed to be bad behaviour, which was demeaning and disrespectful and only intensified M’s anger. [20] The employer acknowledged that the grievor told a different story, but her version told at the hearing was inconsistent with that told by other witnesses and was not even consistent with what she had stated previously. She asserted, for example, that she had not been properly trained, but this was contradicted by the evidence. She was consistent throughout, however, in suggesting that she had done nothing wrong, that others were at fault, and that she was the only employee who had reacted properly. [21] The employer argued that in a case such as this, where there is a conflict in evidence, credibility should be assessed based on the story that was most consistent with the context and that best harmonized the known facts. From this perspective, the employer asserted, it was clear that the grievor had tailored her evidence to suit her own interest, and that she took many opportunities to cast blame on others for the incident she had triggered. There was little question that Beaulieu, who was the only 11 other witness who was present throughout, was a far more credible witness. She was in the best position to relate the facts, she had no reason to misrepresent what had happened, and she made no attempt to embellish her story. Beaulieu testified that M came to her with the fork and asked for a spoon. Beaulieu went to the half door at the kitchen entrance and asked the grievor for a spoon. The grievor replied that M would have to wait. M did not like that response, he bent the fork and he began to verbalize his displeasure. Beaulieu asked for and was given the bent fork by M, and she went into the kitchen. The grievor then said that M would have to wait until he calmed down after what he did to the fork. M heard that, became very upset and threw a cup at Beaulieu. Beaulieu left to get medication for M, and when she returned she heard MacKay also ask the grievor for a spoon for M. But the grievor’s response to MacKay was the same. The refusal was thus repeated twice and was clearly expressed by the grievor as a consequence for M because of his having bent the fork. M also heard this comment and his behaviour escalated to the point where he was out of control. Although the grievor suggested several times that Beaulieu stated that she did not know what to do, Beaulieu denied that evidence, stating it is not the kind of statement she would make in front of clients. This was consistent with her behaviour throughout the incident, during which she reacted professionally and in accordance with her training. The employer pointed out that the treatment plan for M was not in any way ambiguous. The psychometrist, Freeman, confirmed that the simple and appropriate response would have been to give M what he asked for. Not only would this have de-escalated the situation, it would have been consistent with M’s treatment plan and would have respected his human dignity. 12 [22] The employer asserted the grievor’s story was not credible. Moreover, her evidence was focussed on blame for her co-workers. She suggested she had not been properly trained. She accused Beaulieu of ‘freezing’ and not knowing what to do. She repeatedly asked why MacKay and Fortier had not come upstairs earlier. Her evidence demonstrated what the employer characterized as a lack of confidence in her colleagues and supervisor. She failed to admit that she repeatedly denied M the spoon he was asking for, and was vague about this key fact. She also offered new “evidence”, when she claimed in her testimony that other staff had previously refused M cutlery when he asked. The employer suggested this was a fabrication that was offered for the first time at the arbitration hearing. The employer submitted that the grievor’s evidence was not consistent on the key points with any of the other witnesses and that she should not be believed. [23] The employer emphasized the evidence of the Residential Supervisor, Fortier, who had been working for some time supporting the grievor. She described the grievor as a “good, hard worker” who did not make the right decisions and often had to be reminded of her duties. Ultimately the decision was made by the Director of Client Services, Taylor, who concluded that the grievor had caused a serious and unnecessary incident, that she had not followed M’s treatment protocol, that M had not been treated with respect as another adult but as a child, and that, because the grievor failed to take the opportunity to de-escalate, medication was required to calm M. The employer argued that the grievor raised concerns of safety after the fact, but that what 13 had happened was a power struggle between the grievor and M over a spoon. The grievor was reckless in her reaction to M, and she engaged in actions that she should have known would provoke a strong response. Even though she knew of M’s volatility, she doubled down on her inappropriate response. As a 14-year employee she should have known better. Union Submissions [24] The union pointed out that the grievor had 14 years of seniority. She had worked at the residence in question for about six months prior to the incident. The Government Road home was the most difficult residence operated by the employer, and M was the most difficult resident, indeed the most difficult client of the agency. [25] The union argued that the employer had mischaracterized the grievor’s actions. She did not deny M the spoon as a consequence for bending the fork. Rather, she did not give him the spoon because she was concerned that he would throw the spoon and pose a risk to staff and other clients. M was known for his volatile and aggressive behaviour and an incident of this nature was not an isolated event. These concerns about his aggressive nature and the threat to the safety of others were spelled out in M’s treatment documentation. M was escalating his behaviour on the day in question to the point where the grievor became concerned that she had to take steps to protect others. 14 [26] The union raised a number of other factors that the employer had failed to properly weigh in assessing the incident. First, the union questioned why it was that, although M is known to respond more quickly to male staff, MacKay did not appear on the floor until fifteen minutes after the incident had started, after M had already thrown the coffee mug. MacKay also did not try any intervention, other than asking the grievor to give M the spoon, even though he had not witnessed the origin of the incident. There was no way of knowing that M would have de-escalated had he been given a spoon. The grievor, meanwhile, tried to set limits to M’s behaviour and to get him to calm down so that she could keep everyone safe. [27] The union argued that there was no active discipline on the grievor’s file (the collective agreement contains a 12-month ‘sunset clause’ on discipline) and yet the employer jumped directly to a seven-shift suspension. The grievor had only exercised her judgment to protect the client, other residents and staff. The employer’s case turns on whether giving M the spoon would have made a difference, but there is no way of knowing that. The seven-shift discipline is the equivalent to two week’s pay, since the grievor works twelve-hour shifts. The union asked for a declaration that there was no just cause for discipline or, in the alternative, that the penalty be reduced substantially to be more in line with progressive discipline. 15 Conclusions and Decision [28] This case turns on the credibility of the witnesses. The grievor’s evidence was different from that of other witnesses. Given that the employer’s case is based on the grievor’s reactions to a sequence of events, I am required to determine issues of credibility in order to assess what happened. [29] I found the grievor’s evidence difficult to accept, and I must say that at times it was difficult to understand. [30] The grievor said several times that she did not want to blame others, yet she appeared to focus on Beaulieu’s alleged lack of experience, Beaulieu’s alleged delay in giving M the medication, the failure of MacKay and Fortier to respond more quickly, the lack of training and support provided by the employer, and other factors. I did not find merit to the grievor’s allegations against her co-workers or her employer. For example, Chouinard had transferred to the Government Road residence in May 2015. She began her evidence by testifying that on her first day of work at Government Road she asked her supervisor if she could get orientation, but, she stated, she was denied orientation “for whatever reason.” She said that she addressed her concern about this with her supervisor, since new employees normally are given an opportunity to shadow seasoned employees as part of the orientation process at a new house. As it turned out, however, the evidence disclosed that there was unambiguous documentation that not only was the grievor oriented to the work at Government Road, she was specifically oriented on the best approaches to working with M, and she had signed a document 16 indicating that she understood M’s BSP and PCP plans and would abide by the employer’s policy with respect to them. [31] Similarly, I found her suggestion that there was something improper with the timing of the administering of medication to M to be unfounded. Beaulieu stated it took her about fifteen minutes to decide to get the medication, but that M’s behaviour during that time had been at a lower level. She retrieved the medication immediately after M threw the cup. He had already handed her the bent fork when asked, which indicates that he had not, up to that point, reached a high level of agitation. He also followed her to the medication room and he took the medication without incident. MacKay testified that when he arrived on the scene, which was around the time when M was given the medication, M’s behaviour was at a “level of 2 out of 10.” Further, Fortier testified that she did not have any concerns about Beaulieu making the decision to administer the medication or the timing of the decision. From these facts, I conclude that the medication was administered before M became most agitated and aggressive, and that Beaulieu acted properly. [32] The grievor, meanwhile, suggested in her evidence that Beaulieu “froze”, and that she should have given M the spoon sooner. I have concluded there was no basis for the grievor to criticize her colleague with respect to the incident. Beaulieu decided to administer the medication at an appropriate time. She asked the grievor to provide a spoon, but understandably decided not to challenge the grievor on the point in front of the client. It is my conclusion that Beaulieu, although new to the work and the house 17 and dealing with her first major incident, reacted appropriately and professionally throughout. [33] Similarly, I do not accept the grievor’s insinuation that MacKay (or Fortier) failed to respond quickly enough to the situation. They came upstairs as soon as the noise level became elevated. MacKay tried to restore order and de-escalate the situation, but he was prevented from doing so by the grievor’s insistence that M could not be given a spoon. Fortier immediately took over, and is to be commended for the fact that she managed to resolve the problem before anyone was hurt. [34] The grievor’s memory of the incident was incomplete. For example, she could not remember if Beaulieu had asked her for a spoon, saying it is possible she might have made such a request. Similarly, she testified that, “…if [MacKay] asked me for a spoon and I said no, he might be right.” These were key elements of the allegations against her, and it does not seem credible that she cannot recall whether they occurred or not. She further stated that she did not recall giving the sarcastic reply to Beaulieu later that day, but that it could have happened. She also testified that she could not remember the conversation with Freedman that evening. [35] Finally, I found it difficult to understand the grievor’s evidence with respect to several points. For example, she suggested that she had been the one to suggest that she take the other residents out while Fortier restored order. While the grievor initially stated it had been her idea, she immediately testified to a concern that she had to drive 18 the clients although she was in a state of shock. I took this as a veiled criticism of Fortier for not assigning the task to another employee, but it was puzzling evidence given that the grievor had said that taking the other residents out had been her suggestion. [36] I did not find the grievor’s assertion that she denied the spoon due to safety or security concerns to be credible. M had expressed agitation over the fact that he had been given a fork and he wanted a spoon. He bent the fork but gave it to Beaulieu when asked. Anyone reviewing M’s BSP, as all staff are required to do, would have known that utensil bending was common for M, and that it was considered low level aggressive activity on his part. When asked about this, the grievor gave the unsatisfactory response that she had not read anywhere in the BSP that, “… there was a need to give him a spoon.” [37] The grievor made several references to the fact that she had translated for M from time to time. Although there was an issue, from the employer’s perspective, about the way the grievor translated for M, the fact that she translated for him from time to time appeared to bear no relation to the story she told of how the incident developed, since there was no point at which she translated for M during the incident involving the utensils. I concluded this evidence was essentially irrelevant. [38] Taking all her evidence together, I could not conclude that the grievor’s story was complete, consistent with her own assertions, or consistent with facts that were 19 common to the other witnesses. Thus, taking into consideration of all the above factors, I did not find the grievor to be a credible witness. [39] In contrast, I found the employer witnesses, including Beaulieu and MacKay, to be credible. Beaulieu responded to questions put to her quickly without any apparent attempt to tailor the answers to embellish her story. She readily agreed that the incident with M was the first major behaviour incident with which she had been involved and that it was frightening and difficult for her. MacKay was very direct and clear in his evidence, which was consistent with Beaulieu’s in all key points. [40] I have concluded, based on the evidence of Beaulieu, MacKay, Fortier and Freedman, that the incident unfolded in all its essential details in the manner suggested by the employer. M was given a fork, then he asked for a spoon. M bent the fork, then gave it to Beaulieu. Beaulieu asked the grievor for a spoon, but the grievor said M could wait. M reacted by throwing a cup. MacKay arrived on the scene. He asked the grievor for a spoon, and the grievor refused. This was the key moment that triggered M’s most serious reactions that created danger not only for M but for other residents and for staff. I have concluded from the evidence that the grievor refused the spoon because M had been insistent, and particularly because he had damaged the fork. In other words, the grievor decided to impose a consequence on M for bad behaviour. This was a decision that was fraught with risk and, most importantly, contrary to M’s BSP. I have concluded from the evidence that the grievor engaged in a power struggle with M that triggered a dangerously aggressive reaction from M. The grievor’s action would have 20 been a poor exercise of judgement, even in the absence of the BSP. However, her actions were more serious because they were directly contrary to the general approach to client relations and to the specific expert advice as documented in the BSP. In my view, she failed in her obligations as an employee and as a health care professional by not following that advice and missing the opportunities to defuse the escalating situation. [41] I cannot conclude with any certainty that M would have calmed had he been provided with a spoon. He did calm down and eat his meal when he eventually received a spoon, after the house had been evacuated and Fortier had restored order. However, this was also after he had taken medication, and that may have been the reason for his return to a relative state of normalcy. However, I can and do conclude that it is clear from M’s BSP that the proper step to take in the circumstances would have been to give him a spoon. I note that, after he had bent the fork, he continued to ask for a spoon and when Beaulieu asked for the bent fork he gave it to her without incident. This does not appear to support the grievor’s express concern that he would have used the spoon as a weapon – he had a potential weapon, the fork, which he willingly gave up. There is, therefore, good reason to believe that had he received a spoon, M would have returned to his meal. [42] Given the nature of the grievor’s actions in engaging in a power struggle with M, and given the serious risk that was created for injury to M or others, I have concluded that the employer has demonstrated just cause for serious discipline. 21 [43] I understand the union’s submission with respect to the severity of the penalty. A seven-day suspension in a workplace that involves 12-hour shifts amounts to the equivalent of two week’s pay. Normally, one would think that a suspension of one week is sufficiently serious for any offence. In many workplaces, a one-week suspension would be considered the most severe penalty short of termination. In another case, I would likely have found the union’s submission on this point to be worthy of significant weight, and would have considered reducing the penalty. However, the difficulty in this case is that the grievor appears to believe that she did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, she appears to be unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for the incident in question. Even more troubling, rather than accepting responsibility for her actions, the grievor has accused her co-workers and employer of errors or misdeeds that they did not commit. In the circumstances, I do not believe it would appropriate for me to exercise my jurisdiction to reduce the penalty. [44] For the reasons set out above, the grievance is dismissed. _________________________________ Barry Stephens, Arbitrator September 28, 2017