HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2031.Clements.08-02-26 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2006-2031, 2006-2032
Union# G-85-06-BO, G-88-06-BO
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Amalgamated Transit Union - Local 1587
(Clements)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Greater Toronto Transit Authority - GO Transit)
Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Simon Blackstone
Green & Chercover
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER Sven Poysa
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
HEARING April 11, October 2, 3, 16,
November 27, 2007; January 14, 2008.
2
Decision
Ms. Lee-Ann Clements had been employed since October of 1998 as a bus driver for the
Employer. By letter dated October 16, 2006, Mr. Greg Duyn, Acting Manager, Bus Operation
(West Region), terminated her employment for breaching a Conditions of Continued
Employment agreement when she made a comment toward passengers on September 29, 2006,
that was considered offensive. Ms. Clements grieved the discharge, claiming that it was without
just cause. She also grieved the Employer?s decision to suspend her pending an investigation. It
took seven days to complete the hearing of this dispute.
At the conclusion of final argument, I advised the parties that if it would take some time
to complete a decision with reasons that I would consider issuing a ?bottom line? decision. No
objection was taken to the issuing of a ?bottom line? decision and indeed, the Union encouraged
such an approach. I am satisfied in the circumstances that it is appropriate to give a ?bottom
line? decision in the instant case.
After reviewing the oral and documentary evidence and the submissions of counsel, it is
my conclusion that the Employer has not demonstrated that it had just cause to terminate the
employment of Ms. Clements. Accordingly, I direct GO Transit to reinstate Ms. Clements
forthwith to her former employment as a bus driver. Given her length of time away from the
Employer?s workforce, I assume her reinstatement will entail some driver training. I will
continue to remain seized of the grievances to determine what penalty, if any, should be
substituted for the discharge. The decision addressing all issues with reasons will follow in due
course.
3
th
Dated at Toronto, this 26 day of February 2008.
Ken Petryshen ? Vice-Chair