HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0280.Niziol.82-07-28 DecisionONTARIO
CROWN EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE
II
SETTLEMENT
BOARD
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO. ONTARIO, M5G 1Z8 -SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE , 416/598- 0688
280/81
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: OLBEU (Mr. P. Niziol)
Grievor
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Liquor Control Board of Ontario)
Employer
Before: P.G. Barton - Vice-Chairman
S.R. Hennessy - Member
M. Gibb - Member
For the Grievor: P.J.J. Cavalluzzo, Counsel
Golden, Levinson
Barristers (3c Solicitors
For the Employer: M.P. Moran, Counsel
Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart dc Stone
Barristers & Solicitors
Hearing: June 11, 1982
While the Grievor was working in the back the Manager,
Mr. May went back to talk to him and suggested to him that he
might book off sick for the day. As the Manager put it,
"If he had done so he would not have been
disciplined."
Unfortunately, the Grievor did not take the advice of the Manager
and an argument ensued in which voices were raised and names
were used. The upshot of this was that the Grievor was sent
home and suhsequently disciplined.
The basic question before us is Whether or not the
Grievor reported to work in an unfit condition. Has the Employer
satisfied us that he was not fit? The original report written
by the Manager made a reference to the fact that the Grievor
"appeared to, have been drinking prior to coming to work." This
certainly appears to have been the opinion of the Manager at
the time although we are completely satisfied that no alcohol
was involved in the incident. No one noticed any smell of
alcohol, the Grievor's walk was normal, and immediately following
being sent home he went to his family doctor Who talked with him
for some minutes and wrote a letter in which he suggests that
he could find no evidence of impairment by alcohol or anything.
It is clear however that the Grievor was affected by something
at the time and one possible explanation is the medication which
he was taking for dental surgery. If in fact he was being affected
by the medication Which was fairly strong, he was apparently not
aware of it at the time nor do we have any evidence as to Whether
or not he was told about its effects. We have no evidence to
- 4 -
support the conclusion that his condition was caused by medication,
but there was something about the Grievor that afternoon which 2.c.1
both the Manager and Assistant Manager to wonder whether or not
was fit to work as a cashier and face the public. We are also
satisfied that it was reasonable for the Manager to suggest to
him that he take the day off. A person who is unusually loud
and boisterous for whatever reason is probably not in a condition
to deal with the public in a liquor store. However, if the
Grievor was in this condition because of the drugs or for some
other reason, we are not satisfied that the penalty was totally
apt. Certainly it seems to us to be a bit unfair to suspend
him for three days because he subsequently got into an argument
with: the Manager. The fact that he got into an argument reflects
somewhat on his ability to work and to control his temper, but
we think that he should merely have taken the advice of the
Manager and gone home. Accordingly, in this difficult situation,
we feel that the proper remedy is to remove the suspension from
his record, and treat him as if he had in fact booked off sick
on the day in question. Since he has apparently been paid for
the first day as sick, the grievance is allowed and the records
of the Employer will be amended to show that on the day in question
he was absent for a legitimate reason.
DATED AT London, Ontario
thisrday of July, 1982
P.G. Barton Vice Chairman
IL
S.R. Hennessy Member
I I) r)
M. Gibb Member