HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcLean Group 02-04-05
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
RECEIVED
-04- 1 2 2002
OPSEU DOWNSV I EW
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 549
AND:
ARAMARK CANADA LTD.
IN THE MATTER OF:
(the ('Union")
(the Employer")
A GROUP GRIEVANCE - OPSEU FILE # 01-549-296
SOLE ARBITRATOR:
Kevin M. Burkett
APPEARING FOR THE UNION:
Ed Holmes
J olm McLean
Nataniel Sorogon
Emilia Medeiros
Eileen Hamilton
Esmine Brown
APPEARING FOR THE EMPLOYER:
Jamie Knight
Michelle Porteous
Briane Doherthy
- Counsel
- grievor
- gnevor
- grievor
- gnevor
- grievor
~ ..: ,"~-.:';,~ l~'
., \,..,",
".; I
APR 1 6 2002
GnH:v/\Nl.it OtPARTMENT
- Counsel
- Labour Relations Officer
- Manager, Employee Relations
Hearing in this matter was held in TORONTO, Ontario on March 22, 2002
AWARD
This grievance challenges the discipline imposed upon ten bargaining unit
employees for allegedly engaging in time fraud. The grievors work as night cleaners
assigned by Aramark to the Science Centre. Their shift ends at 1 :00 a.m. The allegation
is that the grievors systematically, over a protracted period, left work early while having
others to punch their time cards to show a full eight hour shift. The grievors were each
suspended for two weeks. There is no dispute with respect to my authority to hear and
determine this matter.
Having regard to the agreed facts and to the opening statements of counsel
I am satisfied that these grievors, to varying degrees, engaged in time fraud and, therefore,
were liable to a significant disciplinary response from the employer. Time fraud is
tantamount to theft from the employer and, as with any theft from an employer,
undermines the trust that is essential to a viable employee - employer relationship. As I
made clear in Stelco Inc. and U.S. W .A. Local 1005 (Rogers and Olenjnick grievances)
(1981) unreported "the deliberate falsification of employee time records is a major
industrial offence. . .. not because the company has characterized it as such. . .. but because
it usually involves an attempt to obtain wages for hours not worked and because it
undennines the trust which must exist in any system where the employee records his own
time)'.
The issue to be decided is whether the blanket penalty that was imposed is
just and reasonable in all the circumstances. Having regard to the facts here, most
particularly the role played by the lead hand, (who is also a bargaining unit employee) it
i~ In" orri!'l' th>:lt tllC nC'l>:1!tu [nt' c>:IeI} ot.' tl}1' frl'l'l'unr" bl' "crlnccd FI"OID 10 (1'1"~ to 7 d:ou~
~"--' ..... J -"- ..,-"".,... ... i L... ~ t.. ~ -\ L l.- J .A. '-"" l.1 .. J. - t:"J ~ "" ~ '\J ~-' ...... k '-"'......,. ...,.... "'-'" J ..... ''V''" (L J ~)
2
with a two year sunset from the date hereof. The disciplinary record of each grievor is to
contain a notation that whereas the discipline imposed here may be relied upon to justify
the tennination of any grievor who engages in similar misconduct prior to the expiration
of the sunset, it is not to be relied upon to support the termination of any grievors who
engages in unrelated non-capital misconduct prior to the expiration of the sunset. Each
grievor is to be reimbursed three days pay forthwith.
I remain seized for purposes of the implementation of this award and, in
particular, any discipline that may be imposed upon any of the grievors during the period
of the sunset.
DA TED in Toronto, Ontario this SUi day of April, 2002
Kevin M. Burkett