HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0184.Dodds.12-02-28 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2010-0551-0056
IN THE MATTER ARBITRATION
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2011-0184
OF AN
Under
Before
B
Ontario Public Sployees Union
Union
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
ervice Em
(Dodds)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Nimal Dissanayake Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
fficer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Frank Inglis
Ontario Public Serv
Grievance O
s
s
HEARING
Brian Scott
Ministry of Government Service
Centre for Employee Relation
Employee Relations Advisor
February 23, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This decision relates to a discipline grievance filed by Mr. Darrell Dodds, (“grievor”)
who is employed as a Probation and Parole Officer. The grievance came before the
Board for mediation-arbitration pursuant to article 22.16 of the collective agreement.
Attempts to reach a mediated settlement having failed, the Board was presented with
facts and submissions.
[2] The grievor received a three day suspension without pay for violation of Ministry policy
and procedure on note taking and case recording standards; on supervision of offenders;
and on internet security, which came to light during a case management review.
[3] The employer took the position that the three day suspension without pay imposed was
just, having regard to the serious nature of the Policy and Procedure violations. The
union took the position that in all of the circumstances, discipline was not called for.
Instead, the employer could have counselled the grievor and emphasized the need to
follow policy and procedure. In the alternative, it was submitted that a three day
suspension was way too harsh and ought to be significantly reduced.
[4] I have considered the potentially serious consequences of the grievor’s failure to follow
policy and procedure and the fact that it was not a case of the grievor not being clear as to
what was expected by the policy and procedure. He simply neglected his duties. In the
circumstances I conclude that there was just cause for discipline. In assessing the
appropriate level of discipline there are significant mitigatory factors in favour of the
grievor. He has some 26 years of service. He has had no prior discipline. Nor has he
had any negative performance reviews or other prior warning or even counselling that his
performance may be below expected standards. Most significantly, when confronted
with the employer’s findings, the grievor readily accepted responsibility for his deficient
performance and agreed that improvement was required.
[5] In all of the circumstances, I find that while the employer had cause for discipline, its
response was disproportionate for the purpose of correcting the behaviour. I order that
- 3 -
the three day suspension be struck from all records and that the grievor be compensated
for his losses resulting from that suspension. Instead, a written letter of warning shall be
placed on file. The grievor should clearly understand that further failure on his part to
follow policy and procedure could result in progressively more severe discipline.
[6] The grievance is allowed on the foregoing basis.
Dated at Toronto this 28th day of February 2012.
Nimal Dissanayake, Vice-Chair