Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Larocque 11-07-18
INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEES'UNION,LOCAL426 (theunion) -AND INTEGRA (theemployer) GrievanceinrespectoftheterminationofDanikaLarocque MaryEllenCummings,arbitrator Appearances: JamesCameron,DianeMeilleurandDanikaLarocquefortheunion DarynLJeffries,LynnRivard,andMartincFaucberNaultforthe employer HearingheldatOttawaonAugust27,2010;March11,21,April1and April20,2011 AwardreleasedatGeorgetownOntarioonJuly18,2011 AWARD 1.TheOntarioPublicSel,iceEmployees'Union(OPSEU)filedagrievance challengingtheterminationfromemploymentofDanikaLarocque.Iwilldetailthe reasonsfortheterminationbelow,butinsummary,IntegraterminatedMs.Larocqne's employmentbecauseitbelievedthatshehadwitnessedtwoincidentsofabuseofclients andfailedtoreportthem.Moreover,theemployerassertsthatevenwhenitpresentedMs. Larocquewithdetailsoftheincidents,aswitnessedbyothers,shefailedtoadmitwhat shehadseenandwasnotco-operativeintheinvestigation,therebybreachingthe employer'strustinher. 2.TheunionemphasizesthatthereisnosuggestionthatMs.Larocqueabusedany client.Beforethisincidentshehadacleandisciplinaryrecordinhertwoyearsof employmentandarecentperformanceappraisalthatcharacterizedherasanexcellent employee.Ms.Larocquedeniesseeinganyabuseofaresident.Theunionarguedatthe endofthedaythattherewasnoreliableevidencethatthegrievorwitnessedthealleged abuseonthefemaleresidentandthattheincidentshesawinvolvingthemateresidentdid not,asshesawit,amounttoabuse. 3.Althoughtheunionchallengesthetermination,thegfievorandtheunionarenot seekingreinstatementbecausethegrievordoesnotwanttoretnmtotheworkplace Backgroundfacts 4.Theemployerprovidessupportservicesfordevelopmentallyandphysically disabledchildrenandadultsinPrescott-Russell.Theeventstwilloutlineconcern activitiesattworesidentialhomesinRocklandwhichhouseadultswithveryhighneeds. Ms.Larocqueworkedasan"Agentd'integration2".Whensheworked,shewas responsiblefortheneedsofthe4adultslivingatCercleHenri.Thatincludesmakingsure theygotupinthemorning,helpingwithtoileting,washing,dressing,preparationof breakfast,andgenerallygettingthemreadytostarttheirday.Sheadministered medications,andgotthemontheirschedulefortheday,whichincludedoutings, watchingtelevision,attendingmedicalappointments,andswirrmainginthepoolatCercle Heraf.Thestaffisresponsibleforthesafetyandwellbeingoftheresidents,withthegoal ofimprovingtheirabilitytoperfonntasksindependentlyandgenerally,tohaveagood life. 5.itisundisputedthattheresidentshaveveryhighneedsandcanbedifficult, uncooperativeandphysicallyviolent.MartineFaucherNault,ClinicalSupervisor, testifiedthatnoneoftheresidentscanspeakorcommunicateinthetypicalways;Many ofthemhavespentmostoftheirlifeininstitutionalcareandwhentheycametolivein Integrahomes,hadnoneoftheskillsneededtoparticipateinindependentliving.The staffdealwithanumberofchallengeseachdaythatcanescalateintocrises,requiring theirphysicalintervention.Thestaffareresponsibleforadvancingtheresidents' independence,butalwaysinanenvironmentthatpromotestheirsafety-andsecurity. 6.ThethreeAgentsd'integrationwhotestifiedwereyoung,under20yearsofage, whentheseeventsoccurred.Onewasaco-opstudent,stillinhighschool.Theothertwo, includingthegrievor,wereworkingtheirfirstemploymentafterfinishinghighschool.I hearddetailsaboutthetrainingtheyreceived,theiropportunitiestocallonothersforhelp andthesupportprovidedbysupervisors.Aprotocolisdevelopedforeachresident, basedontheirtypicalbehaviourpatterns.Theprotocoldetailshowtodealwith aggression,andhowtosafelyandcalmlydefuseanysituation.Butthisworkremains verychallengingonadailybasis.Ms.FaucherNaultsaidthattheresidentshurt themselvesandhurtthestaff.Injuriesthatrequirestafftoremainabsentfi'omworkare notuncommon. TheeventsleadingtoMs.Larocque'sterminationfromemployment 7.SomeemployeestoldtheemployerthattwoAgentsd'integTation,Patrick LabrcheandDominicLaviolette,whoworkedatthesecondRocklandresidence,on LaurierStreet,werephysicallyandmentallyabusingresidents.Mr.Labr+cheandMr. Laviolettewerefn'ed.Whileitwasinvestigatingthosereports,theemployerbecame concernedthatthereweremoreincidentsthathadnotbeenreported. 8.TheemployerheldameetingwithallstaffwhoworkatCercleHemiandLaurier, settingoutthatithadreceivedcomplaintsofabuse,emphasizedhowseriousthatwasand imploringstafftocomeforwardwithanyinformationthattheyhad.Ms.FaucherNault testifiedthatstaffwereremindedoftheemployer'sabusepolicyandtoldthatfailingto reportabusemadethemasguiltyasthosewhohadcommittedabuse.Anumberofstaff cameforward,eitherinperson,orbye-mail.Theemployeralsointerviewedevery employeewhohadworkedatthetwohomes,sometimesmorethanonce.Althoughstaff tendedtobeassignedtoonehouseortheother,afewworkedatbothandtherewas considerableinteraction,astheeventsatthishearingshow. 9.HavinglistenedtothetestimonyofMs.FaucherNault,Iunderstandthatthese allegationsofabuseopenedupaverydifficultperiodfortheemployer.Ms.Faucher Naultsaidthatalloftheh"residentsarevulnerableandnotabletoadviseanyoneifthey areabused.Someofthemhadsufferedabuseinthepast,beforetheycametoIntegra.She testifiedthattheemployerwasverydistressedwhenitrealisedthatsiginficantverbal, emotionalandphysicalabuseofresidentshadtakenplaceoveralongperiodoftime.Ms. FaucherNaultsaidthatitwasonlyaftertheemployerheldageneralmeetingwithallof itsemployeesthatmoreincidentsofabusewerereported,whichwasverydisappointing totheemployer. 10.Astheinvestigationcontinued,theemployerformedtheviewthatMr.Labrbche andMr.Laviolettehadengagedinwidespreadabuseoveratongperiod.Theallegations ofabusehavenotbeenproved.Atthetimeofthishearing,acriminaltrialwasin progress,butnoverdicthadbeenreached.OPSEUhaschallengedtheterminationsofMr. Labr6cheandMr.LavioletteandthearbitrationisscheduledforNovember2011.Iamin thetrickypositionofhavingtodetermineiftheemployerhadcauseforterminatingthe employmentofMs.Larocqueforfailingtoreportabuseandfailingtoco-operateinan investigationincirculnstanceswhereithasnotbeenestablishedwhetherornotthe allegedabusetookplace. 2 Summary 1I.ForreasonsthatIwillsetoutbelow,IconcludethatMs.Larocquedidnotwitness theallegedincidentofabusewiththefemaleresident.IfredthatMs.Larocquedid witnesseventsthatamounttophysicalandverbalabuseofthemaleresident.Ialsofred thatMs.Larocquefailedtocooperateintheemployer'sinvestigationandfailedto appreciateherdutytoparticipateinthatinvestigation.IconcludethatMs.Larocque engagedinmisconductwhichshouldattractdiseiplinebutthatthepenaltyofdischargeis excessiveinallofthecircumstances. Therelevantfacts 12.Assetoutabove,theemployerreceivedreportsofabusebyMr.Labrcheand Mr.Laviolette.Itcalledameetingofalltheemployeestoexplainthereportsithad receivedtoemphasisethesignificanceoftheallegationsandtoaskalltheemployeesto comeforwardiftheyhadanyknowledgeofsituationsofabuse.Asitturnsout,Ms. Larocquedidnotattendthatmeeting. 13.TheemployerinterviewedMs.Larocqueinthesamewaythatitinterviewedallof theotheremployees.Atthetimeofthefirstinterview,theemployerknewaboutthe incidentwiththemaleresidentandaskedgeneralquestions.Ms.FaucherNaulttestified thatMs.Larocquewasuncooperativeintheinterview.Shesatinadefensiveposition, armscrossedandsaidthatsheknewnothing.Ms.Larocqnesaidthatshehadnotseenany abuseanddidnotunderstandwhytheemployerwastalkingtoher.Atthattime,Ms. LarocquewasrelatedtbxoughherspousetoMr.Laviolette.Theemployerbelievedthat Ms.Larocquewasuncooperativebecauseofthefamilyrelationship. 14.Inhertesthnouy,Ms.Larocqueagreedthatshewasnotverycooperativeinthat interview.Shesaidthatbecauseshehadnotattendedthegroupmeetingshereallydidnot knowwhatwashappeningandbelievedthatshehadbeensingledoutbecauseofher familyrelationshiptoMr.Laviolette.However,inhertestimonybeforemeMs.Larocque maintainedherpositionthatshehadseennoabuseoftheresidentsbyanyone. 15.Aftertheemployerinterviewedothers,italxangedanothermeetingwithMs. Laroeque.Ms.FaucherNaulttestifiedthatinterviewswithtwootheremployeesgavethe employerreasontobelievethatMs.Larocquehadbeenpresentwhentwoinstancesof abusehadhappened;oneinrespectofafemaleresidentandoneinrespectofamale resident.InthesecondinterviewofMs.Larocque,theemployerputmoredetailed questionstoher,basedontheinformationithadacquiredfromothers.Again,Ms. Larocquedeniedthatshehadseenanyabuse.Shesaidthatshehadnotbeenpresentatall fortheincidentinrespectofthefemaleresident.Sheacknowledgedthatshehadbeen presentduringtheeventsinrespectofthemaleresidentbutdescribedtheconductofMr. LabrcheandMr.Laviolettedifferently.Ms.Larocqueexplainedtheirconductasbeing anappropriateinterventioninacrisissituation. Theeventsconcerningthefemaleresident 16.JessicaPrvostwasaco-opstudentinthesummerof2008.Sherecalledthaton onedayafemaleresidentoftheLaurierhousewasvisitingCercleHenritousethepool. Thefemaleresidenthadahistoryofdefecatingininappropriateplaces.Whileshewasin thepool,thefemaleresidentstrainedasiftodefecate.Mr.Labrche,holdingawooden -3 spooninhishand,toldthefemaleresidentthat"ifyoushitinthepoolIwillmakeyoueat itandIwillhityouwiththespoon".Ms.Prvosttestifiedatthetimeoftheincidentshe wasquiteshockedbythestatement.Butshesaidshedidnotunderstandtherelationship betweeniVn-.LabrcheandMr.Lavioletteandtheresident.Shedidnotreporttheincident toanyone. 17.AlthoughMs.Prdvostwasnotabletosayinwhatmonth,muchtessonwhatday, theeventocculted,sheiscertainthatitwasduringthesummerof2008becausethatis whensheworkedasaco-opstudent.Ms.Prvostsaidthatshewasalmostcertainthat MsLarocquewastherebecausesherecalledsittingbesideher.Ms.Prvostrecalledthat Mr.LabrcheandMr.Laviolettewerethere.Shealsobelievedinitiallythatoneofthe twoemployeesnamedMartinwasalsothere.However,overthecourseofhertestimony, •shebecamelesscertainthatoneoftheMartinswasthere. 18.incrossexamination,counselfortheunionputtoMs.PrvostthatMs.Larocque wouldtestifythatshehadnotseentheeventsMs.Prvostdescribed.Ms.Prvost repeatedthatshewasalmostcertainthatMs.Larocquewaspresent.Ms.Prvost acknowledgedthatMs.Larocquewouldhavehadotherresponsibilitiesinsidethehome, butbelievedthatMs.Larocqnehadbeeninthepoolareawhentheinappropriate statementwasmade.tnre-examinationbycounselfortheemployer,Ms.Prvostwas askedtoestimatehercertaintyonascaleof1to100.Shesaidthatshewas80%certain thatMs.Larocquehadbeeninthepoolareawhenthestatementwasmadetothefemale resident. 19.Ms.Larocquewascmntaininhertestimonythatshehadnotheardthestatement thatMs.Prdvostdescribed.Ms.Larocquesaidthatthereweremanydayswhenthe femaleresidentwasatthepoolbecausesheenjoyedit. 20.ItisdifficultforMs.Larocquetorecallaspecificdaymorethan2yearsbefore shetestifiedwhentheonlytouchstoneistheinappropriatestatement.WhileIappreciate thattheemployermustonlyestablishanabalanceofprobabilitiesthattheevent occurred,IamnotsatisfiedthatMs.Larocqueheardanabusivecomment.Becausethe statementwassobriefandoccurredonadaythatwasnotdistinguishablefromothersitis entirelypossiblethatMs.Larocquedidnothearthestatementordidhearitbutdidnot appreciateitssignificance. 21.AsIwillexplaininmoredetailbelow,IfoundthatMs.Larocquedidnothavea sophisticatedappreciationofinappropriateconductandabuse.Itisentirelypossiblethateven']t"Ms.Larocquewaspresentwhenthestatementwasmadeitdidnotmakean impressionuponher.WithoutcriticisingMs.Prvost,Inotethatshedidnotreportthe inappropriatecommentatthetimesheheardit,eventhoughitsurprisedher.Thatfailure toreportisconsistentwithageneralpatternbystaffoffailingtoappreciatethevarious waysthatabusecanoccur,asisshownbytheslowanddelayedmannerinwhichwhatis allegedtobewidespreadabusecametotheattentionoftheemployer. 22.Ms.FaucherNaulttestifiedthatMr.LabrcheandMr.Lavioletteengagedina patternofauthoritarianbehaviourtowardsstaffandresidents.Ifthatistruethenthe singlecommentmadetothefemaleresidentintheswirmningpoolmaynothavestood outassignificant,iacceptMs.Larocqu&sfilxnevidencethatshedoesnotrecallbeing presentwhensuchastatementwasmade.Insucheirennastances,herdenialsof -4 knowledgetotheemployerinherinterviewabouttheincidentweregenuineandshe shouldnotattractanydisciplineforherconduct. Theeventsconcerningthemaleresident 23.Iwillstartwiththefactsthatarenotcontroversial.Tilemaleresidentismorethan 6feettallandobese.Heisautisticanddoesnotcommunicateverbally.Tilemaleresident hasalotofanxietyandwhenthatanxietyescalateshebecomesaggressive,injuringboth himselfandstaffmembers.Aprotocolhasbeendevelopedforthemaleresident.When hebecomesanxious,staffaretoassisthimtositdownintheIndianposition.That involvesonestaffmemberstandingoneachsideofhim,supportinghimundereachann, andgentlyloweringhimtothefloor,whereheistositcross-legged.Astaffmembermay thenplaceahandonhisshouldertosteadyhimandencouragethemaleresidenttobe cahn. 24.Beyondthosefacts,thereissignificantdisagreementaboutanincidentthat occurredwiththemaleresidentinMarch2009.EricaRivestreportedtheincidenttothe employerafterthegeneralmeetingheldwithallstaffthatfollowedtileterminationsof Mr.LabrbcheandMr.Laviolette.Ms.RivestsaidthatMs.Larocquewasawitness. WhenMs.Larocquewasinterviewedbytheemployersherecalledtheincidentbutsaid thatnothinginappropriatehadhappened. 25.Beforeme,Ms.RivesttestifiedthatshewasworkingatCercleHenriwithMs Larocque.Shortlyafterthestartoftheshiftat7:00am,themaleresidentbecamevery anxious.Ms.RivestsaidthatMs.Larocquehadbeeninjuredthedaybeforebythemale residentandwasnotavailabletophysicallyintervene.Theydecidedtoaskforhelpfrom thestaffattheLaurierhouse.Mr.Labrbcheand.Mr.Laviolettearrivedtohelp. 26.AccordingtoMs.Rivest,Mr.LabrcheandMr.Laviolettepositionedthemselves atoppositeendsofthediningroomandcalledthemaleresidentbynmne,inturns, seekingtodisorienthim.Afterafewminutesofrunningfromonetotheother,themale residentbecamedizzy.Ms.Rivestsaidthatthemaleresidentisphysicallyawkwardand doesnothavegoodbalance.Ms.RivestsaidthatMr.LabrcheandMr.Laviolette contributedtotilemaleresident'sanxiety.Themaleresidentthenattackedoneofthem andthetwoofthemputhimontheground,onhisbelly.Ms.Rivestcannotrecallexactly howhewasplacedonthegroundbutitsaiditwasnotgentle.Shesaidthatthemale residentdidnotbendhiskneesbutwentdownhardonhisstomach.Atthatpoint,Mr. Lavioletteplacedhisfingeronthemaleresident'sheadtosignalhisdominationofthe situation. 27.Ms.Rivestcharacterisedthisactivityastotallyinappropriate.Shesaidthatthe appropriateprotocolwiththemaleresidentistoassisthimtositintheIndianposition andthenprovidehimwithatoweloramagazinetocahnhim.Astaffmemberistotouch hisbackforreassurance.Staffarenottoplacehimonhisbellyandputtingafingeronhis headishumiliating.Ms.Rivestsaidthatthemaleresident'sactionsoccurbecauseheis tryingtotellthemsomethingandinsteadoftryingtounderstandthemaleresident,Mr. Laviolettewasshowingthathewasincontrol. 28.Ms.RivesttestifiedthatMs.Larocquewitnessedtheentireincidentinthedining room.AccordingtoMs.Rivest,themaleresidenteventuallystoodupthenmadehis -5 waytothebasementofthehousewherehisbedroomislocated.Shortlyafter,themale residentstartedmakingnoisesanditsoundedasthoughhewasthi'owingfurnitureor hittinghisheadagainstthewall.Mr.Labr+cheandMr.Laviolettewentdownstah-s.Ms. RivestfollowedthemandshebelievesthatMs.Larocquefollowedher.Ms.Rivest testifiedthatMr.Lahr+chewasholdingthemaleresident'shandandswinginghim around.Themaleresidentbecameverydizzyandhadtositdown.Mr.Lahr+cheandMr. Laviotettethendecidedtostandafewfeetawayfromthemaleresidentandencore'aged himtoslapthem.AccordingtoMs.Rivest,themaleresidentbecamefrustratedbecause hecouldnotslapthem,norcouldhestandup. 29.Ms.RivesttoldmethatMs.Larocquefollowedherdownthestairstothe basementandsawsomeattheswingingofthemaleresidentandallofthe encouragementoftheresidenttoslapMr.LabrcheandMr.Laviolette. 30.Ms.Rivesttestifiedthatshereportedtheincidenttohersupervisorshortlyafterit happened.Iheardnoevidenceaboutwhathappenedasaresultofthatreport.Assetout above,Ms.Rivestagainreportedtheincidenttoheremployershortlyafterthegeneral meetingaskingallemployeestoreportanyabusethattheyhadseen.Atthattime,Ms. Rivestdetailedthisincidentinane-mail.Thereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenher e-mailandthetestimonyshegavebeforeme. 31.Ms.Larocquegaveasimilarlydetailedaccountbeforemewithsomeimportant differences.Sherecalledthatthemaleresidentbecameanxiousearlyinthemorning whichistypicalwhenhehashadabadnight.Whatwasunusualisthathethrewhiscup ofcoffee.Ms.Larocquesaidthathelikeshiscoffeeverymuchandusuallydmksit quickly.Shesaidthatshewasnotabletointervenebecauseshehadbeeninjuredtheday before.ShesaidthatMs.Rivestwasnotabletointerveneeitherbecauseshewas sufferingfromahangoverandnotfeelingwell.TheycontactedtheLaurierhouseandMr. LabrbcheandMa'.Laviolettecameover.Ms.LarocquesaidthatsheandMs.Rivesthad decidedtoleavethehouseandwaitoutsidebecausetheydidnotthinkitwassafetostay withthemaleresident. 32.Ms.LarocqnesaidthatMa'.Labr+cheandMr.Lavioletteenteredthehousecalling thenameofthemaleresidenttogethisattention.Shedeniedthattheypositioned themselvestotaunthim.ShesaidthatMr.LabreheandMr.Layioletteeachplaceda handunderthemaleresident'sarmpitandputhhnintheIndianposition.Shesaidthathe mayhaveendeduponhisbellyatsomepointforafewseconds,butthatwasbecausethe maleresidentlosthisbalance.Ms.Larocquedeniedthatanyoneplacedafingeronthe backoftheresident'sheadwhilehewasonhisbelly.Ms.LarocquesaidthatperlmpsMr. Labrcheplacedahandonthemaleresident'sshoulderorheadwhilehewassittingin theindianpositiontopreventhimfromgettingup. 33.Ms.Larocqueagreesthatafterthemaleresidentcalmeddown,hewenttohis basementbedroom.Shortly,sheheardhimyelling.Mr.LabrcheandMr.Laviolette wentdownstairsandshefollowedlessthanaminutelater.SheheardMr.Lavioletteand Mr.Labrbchetryingtocalmhimthensawthemaleresidentchargetheguys.Eachtook oneofhisarmstokeephimundercontrolandthentheymadehimsitdowninhislounge chair.Oneofthemaskedhertogoandgetthemaleresident'smedicationandshealso broughtdownabowlofcerealbecausehehadnoteatenhisbreakfast.Whenshe -6 returned,themaleresidentatehiscerealthencalmlyreturnedupstairstowatchTV.The maleresidentthenhadashowerandstartedhisusualday. 34.Ms.LarocquebelievesthatMs.Rivestfollowedherdownthestairsbutstayed onlybriefly,returningtositupstairsatthecomputerbecauseshewasnotfeelingwell. 35.Ms.LarocquetestifiedafterhearingtheevidenceofMs.Rivest.Thatorderof evidenceaccountstosomedegreeforthelevelofdetailinMs.Laroeqne'stestimony. However,IremainstruckbythelevelofdetailMs.Larocqueprovidedtomeincontrast totheinformationsheprovidedtotheemployer. 36.Ms.Larocquetestifiedthatinherfn'stmeetingwiththeemployershefelt threatened.Shesaidthattheemployer'srepresentativesplacedalotofemphasisonthe firingofMr.LavioletteandMr.Labr+cheandinsistedwheneversheansweredaquestion thatifshedidnotanswerhonestlyshewouldbefired.Ms.Larocquesaidthatbeforethe meetingshehadheardalotofpeopletalkaboutMr.LabrcheandMr.Lavioletteand peoplewerewonderingwhatwouldhappentoherbecauseofthefamilyrelationship. 37.Ms.Laroeque'sdescriptionofherdemeanourandattitudearesimilartothe evidenceofMs.FaucherNault.Ms.Larocquetestifiedthatalthoughshehadnotbben accusedofabuseshefelttargeted.SherecalledtellingMs.FaucherNaultshedidnot wanttogetinvolved.Shedeniessayingthatshewouldnottalktoher.Ms.Larocquedid notseeherattitudeascontrarytotheemployer'spolicyrequiringemployeesto participateinanabuseinvestigation.Ms.Larocquesaidthatbecauseshedidnotwitness anythingtherewasnoreasonforhertobeinvolved.Becauseshedidnotseeanything, shewasnothidinganything.Ms.Larocquerepeatedthatshedidnotseeanyincidentsof abuse.Forthatreason,shesaidshehadnoinformationtoprovidetotheemployer. 38.Ms.LarocqueacknowledgedthatshedidnottelltheemployerthatMr.Lavioletie andMr.Labrchehadplacedthemaleresidentonhisstomach.Shedidnottellthemthat theyhadplacedthemaleresidentonthegroundinaroughmarinerbecauseshedidnot believethattheyhad.Shealsodidnotbelievethattheyhadcalledhisnameforthe purposeofdisorientinghimandsosaidnothingaboutitattheinterview.Ms.Larocque alsodeniedseeingthemaleresidentbeingswunginthebasementarea.Shealsodidnot seeanytauntingtogetthemaleresidenttoslapMr.LabrcheandMr.Laviolette. 39.Ms.Larocquetestifiedthatsometimesabitofforceneedstobeusedwhenthe clientisagitated.Itisnotalwayspossibletofollowtheprotocolandthereisaneedto establishcontroloftheresidentbeforetheprotocolcanbefollowed.Shedoes understand,howeverthatthemaleresidentisnottobeplacedonhisbelly.Shebelieves thatthemateresidentlosthisbalance,fellonhisbellyandthenMr.Lavioletteandlvh'. LabrcheheldhimforafewsecondstocalmhimandthenaskhimtogetintotheIndian position. 40.hacrossexmnination,Ms.Larocqueagreedthatshehadprovidedamoredetailed narrativeinhertestimonythenshehadinhertwointerviewswiththeemployer. Analysisanddecision 41.inmyview,itisnotpossibletoreconcilethestoriestoldbyMs.RivestandMs Larocque.Neitherpart3,suggestedthatMs.Rivestwasnotcredible.Theunionargued -7 thatMs.RivestandMs.Larocquehaddifferentopportunitiestoobserveeventsand perceivedtheeventstheydidseedifferently. 42.ThereisnodoubtthatMs.Larocquedidnotwanttogetinvolvedintheabuse investigation.Shedemonstratedthatattitudefromthefirstmeetingwiththeemployer. Ms.Larocqueappearedtobelievethatshecoulddeterminewhetherornottobeinvolved inaninvestigation.Inotherwords,ifMs.Larocquedidnotbelieveshehadwitnessed anythingofimportance,shewasundernoobligationtoparticipate.Iunderstandthatshe felttargetedandimplicatedbecauseofherfamilyrelationshipwithMr.Laviolette. Howevertheresultingattitudeonlyplacedmoreattentiononherbecausetheanswersshe gavetotheemployer'squestionswerebriefanduninformative.Incontrast,Ms.Rivest hadprovidedadetailednarrativeoftheoccurrencewiththemaleresident.Inthesecond interview,Ms.Larocquemaintainedherunwillingnesstoengagewiththeemployereven afteritputverydetailedquestionstoher,onlyconfirmingtheemployer'ssuspicionsthat shewashidingsomething. 43.Moreover,Ms.Larocque'sattitudeanddemeanourinherinterviewswiththe employerconveyedthatsheresentedbeingquestionedandresentedbeinginvolvedinthe investigationofabuse.Sheinitiallyassertedtotheemployerthateverythinghadbeen doneproperlyandresistedtheemployer'seffortstodrawoutamoredetailedexplanation oftheevents. 44.IbelievethatMs.Rivest'snarrativeoftheincidentwiththemaleresidentismuch closertowhatreallyhappenedthanisMs.Larocque'sexplanation.Ms.Rivestmadea complaintabouttheincidentshortlyafterithappened.Shepreparedadetailede-mail explanationattherequestoftheemployerandhertestimonyisconsistentwithher writtenrecord.Ms.Rivestwasalsoabletoexplaineachstepintheincident.Atthetime shemadeherstatementshewasnotintendingtoimplicateMs.Larocque.Thefocusof herstatementwasonMr'.LavioletteandMr.LabrcheandMs.Larocqueisonly identifiedasawitness. 45.Ascounselfortheemployerargued,Ms.Rivestiscompletelydisinterestedandat thetimeofthehearingwasnolongerworkingatIntegra.Shehadnothingtogainfrom hertestimony.IagreewiththosesubmissionsandconcludethatMs.Rivestgavean accuratereportoftheeventsassheobservedthem.Ms.Rivestalsounderstoodthat disorientingthemaleresident,placinghhnroughlyonhisbelly,placingafingeronhis headtoprovecontrol,swinginghimroundtomakehimdizzyandtauntinghhnwereall formsofabuseandcompletelyInappropriate. 46.Incontrast,Ms.Larocquedidnotrecognizean?,abuseorinappropriatebehaviour. Ascounselfortheemployerargued,theguidingprincipleforMs.Larocqueisthatshe doesnotwanttobeinvolved.Shehasnogoodreasontorememberwhatreallyhappened becauseitwouldhaveimplicatedher,andcreatedfamilyproblems.Moreover,Idonot thinkthatMs.Larocquewasabletorecogniseanabusivesituation.If,ashasbeen suggestedbyMs.FaucherNault,Mr.LabrcheandMr.Lavioletteactedinan authoritarianmannertobothresidentsandstaff,Ms.Larocquemaynothaveappreciated thattheireffortstobringthemaleresidentundercontrolwereinappropriate. 47.FromalltheevidenceIheard,Ibelievethatthestaffregularlyexercisedmore physicalcontroloverthemaleresidentthenhisprotocolcalledfor.Alloftheemployee -8 witnessestestifiedaboutthedifficultyincontrollingthemaleresidentwhenhewas aggressiveandcapableofharminghimselfandothers.WhileMs.FaucherNault's expectationwasthatemployeeswouldwithdrawfromthesituationwhentheresident becameaggressive,itappearsthatthestaffwouldmoreoftenseektophysically intervene. 48.Whenthatphysicalinterventionhappenedonaregularbasis,thelinebetween appropriateexerciseofcontrolandphysicalabusebecameblurred.Tobeclear,Ms. Rivestrecognisedthephysical,emotionalandverbalabusethatshesawintheincident involvingthemaleresident.IdonotbelievethatMs.Larocquebroughtthesamelevelof appreciationandwhenconfronted,chosetheeasyrouteandclaimedtohaveno knowledge.Ms.Larocqueputherowninterestsaheadofthoseoftheresidentswhen cornered.IconcludethatMs.Larocquedidnotco-operatewiththeemployerinits investigationoftheallegedabuse,contrarytoheremploymentobligations.Ibelievethat Ms.Larocquesawmorethensheclaimsbuthasdampedanyrecollectiontoavoidbeing involvedintheinvestigationofMr.LabrcheandMr.Laviolette. 49.However,Idonotfredthattheemployerhadjustificationtoterminateher employmentbecauseshewasnotcompletelytruthfulandco-operative.Ms.Larocque wasanemployeewithtwoyearsservice,nodiscipline,andaperformanceevaluationthat ratedherasexcellent. 50.Iacknowledgetheemployer'sargumentthatthisworkplaceisspecial.The employeeshaveresponsibilitytotakecareofvulnerableadultsandatitsverycoreisthe obligationtoprotectthesafetyandsecurityoftheresidents.Theemployer'sabusepolicy makescleartheobligationonemployeestoreportabuse.Astheemployerargued,the grievordidnotreporttheabusewhenithappenednorwhenaskedinaformalinterview bytheemployer. 51.However,Ms.FaucherNaulttoldusthattheemployeronlydiscoveredthescale oftheallegedabusebyMr.LavioletteandMr.Labr8cheafterthegeneralmeetingithad withstaff,andindividualemployeescameforward.Thatrealitysuggeststhateven thoughtheemployerhasastronganti-abusepolicy,aboutwhichallofthewitnesseswho testifiedwereaware,therewasagapbetweenknowledgeofthepolicyandappreciation ofthecircumstancesinwhichareportofallegedabuseshouldbemade.Ihavenodoubt thatthisgaphasnowbeenrectified. 52.ButImustassessMs.Larocque'smisconductinthecontextoftheworkplaceas shefoundit.ImustalsoemphasizethatMs.Larocqueisnotaccusedofabuse.Ifound thatsheengagedinmisconductinfailingtoco-operateintheemployer'sinvestigationof aseriousconcernaboutabuseofvulnerableresidentsandinfailingtobetruthfulabout whatshesawintheincidentinvolvingthemaleresident. 53.TheemployerreliesonthedecisioninTheCotporationoftheCityofTorontoand MeO'opolitanToJvntoCivicEmployeesUnionLocal46(March10,1993).Arbitrator Stewarttalkedabouttheimportanceoftruthfulnessandloyaltytotheemployment relationship: ...thedutyofanemployeetocarryout'hisfunctionswithhonestyandintegrity,isfundamental toanemploymentrelationship.Indeterminingwhetherdischargeistheappropriatepenalty wheretherehasbeenabreachofthisobligation,therelevantfactorsincludethenatureofthe -9 dishonestyorbreachofintegrity,thenoticethattheemployerhasgivenwithrespecttothe seriousnessofthebehaviouratissue,theneedforgeneraldeterrenceandthemannerinwhich theemployeehasrespondedtotheallegations.Withrespecttothislatterpoint,aprompt acknowledgementofwrongdoinguponconfrontationhasbeennotedasasignificantfactorin supportoftheconclusionthattheemploymentrelationshipremainsaviableonewhilea continueddenialofw.rongdoing,particularlywhenthedenialcontinuesatthetimeofthe hearing,hasgenerallybeenconsideredtobeafactorwhichweighsheavilyagainsttheongoing viabilityoftheemploymentrelationshipandhencetheappropriatenessofreinstatement.... 54.WhileIagreethatthoseprinciplesaregenerallyapplicable,someimportant distinctionsneedtobemadeinthiscase.First,thegrievorandtheunionarenotseeking reinstatementtoemployment.Second,whileagreatdealofthisawardhasbeendedicated totalkingaboutincidentsofabuse,themisconductinissueisnottheabuseofaresident. 55.Inthecasebeforeme,Iammindfulthatthegrievorwasyoungandinexperienced atthetimeoftheseevents.Ontheotherhand,Ialsorecognisethatshecontinuedtodeuy thatshehadseenanyinappropriatebehaviouruptoandincludingthearbitrationhearing. Ialsounderstandthatthegrievorcontinuestobelievethatshedoesnotneedto participateinaninvestigationofabuseifshedoesnotbelievethatshehasanythingto contribute.Thatisamostunfortunateview. 56.Iconcludethatsubstitutinga10daysuspensionforthedischargewouldbe apwopriate.Thatlengthysuspension,imposedonanemployeewhohasnoprevious discipline,demonstratesthatMs.Larocqueengagedinseriousmisconduct.However,the misconductisnotsoseriousastoattracttemaJnationofemployment.Again,Ms. Larocquedidnotengageinanyabuseofaresidentandthatdistinctionmustnotbe forgotten. Nextsteps 57.Thepartiesdisagreeaboutwhatremedyshouldflowfromthesubstitutionofa lesserpenalty.Theemployer,believingthatthepmieswillnotbeabletoagreeona remedy,asksmetochoosealevelofcompensationwhichissomewherebetweenwhat thegrievorwouldbeentitledtoasanon-unionemployeeundertheEmployment StandardsActandatcommonlaw.TheemployerdoesnotbelievethatMs.Larocqueis entitledtodamagesfortheemploymentincomeshehasthelostasaresultofthe termination.TheemployerarguedthatsinceMs.Larocqueandtheunionhaveelectednot toseekreinstatement,thedamagestowhichsheisentitledarelimited. 58.Theuniondisagreeswiththepositionoftheemployer,butthoughtthattheparties wouldbeabletomakemotefocusedsuhinissionsafterIissuedanawardonthemerits anddeterminedwhetherornotthepenaltyofdischargewouldbemodified.Theunion asksthatthepartiesbegiventhatopportunity. 59.iwouldliketogivethepartiesachance,howeverbrief,toseektoagreeonthe remedy.Oncecounselhavehadthosediscussions,theymaycontactmetoschedule eitheraconferencecallorafurtherdateofhearingintheeventthatissuesremain outstanding. 60.iremainseizedtodealwithanyissuesarisingoutofremedyandoutofthe implementationofthisaward. -10 DatedatGeorgetown,Ontario,this18thdayofJuly2011 MaryEllenCummings