Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Koscik 12-03-12
INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: LAKERIDGEHEALTHCORPORATION (Hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Employer") -and ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION (Hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Union") ANDINTHEMATTEROFTHEGRIEVANCEOFBOGDANKOSCIKALLEGINGUNJUST TERMINATION JOSEPHD.CARRIER AppearanceslbrtheEmployer: MichelleS.Henry JohnHarris KatharinaSixel AppearancesfortheUnion: EricdelJunco BogdanKoscik TheresaKoseik SoleArbitrator Counsel,Borden,LadnerGervaisLLP Manager,LabourRelations ChiefofDepartmentMedicalPhysics Counse] Grievor SpouseofGrievor HearingsinthismatterwereheldinAjax,Ontarioasfollows:March1,August22,23,September12,26, 27,October6,November25,December6and9,2011. AWARD Mr.BogdanKoscikhadbeenhiredbyLakeridgeHealthCorporation(theHospital)inoraboutNovember of2006asaServiceEngineerandwasterminatedinoraboutJuneof2010for,amongstotherthings, allegedlyfalsifyinghisovertimeclaims.CounsellorOPSEU,Mr.EricdelJunco,puttheEmployerto thestrictproofoftheallegationsandtookthepositionthatevenifproven,theydidnotmerittermination butsomelesserpenalty. Mr.Koscik'sdutiesincluded,inparticular,therepairandmaintenanceofseveralLinearNuclear AccelleratorssituateintheHospital'scancersector.Hewasthefirstsuchengineerhiredandwas engagedduringtheinitialinstallationandsetupofthefirstpieceofequipmentinthelatterpartof2006. Mr.Koscik,fromtheonsetofhisemployment,loggedconsiderableovertime;however,inMayof2010it cametotheattentionofhismanager,Ms.KatharinaSixel,thathehadbeenabsentfromtheHospitalfora periodoftimeonaSundayforwhichhehadclaimedovertimehours.Thisincidentoccurredinandabout thesametimehehadengagedinwhathismanagerconsideredinsubordinateconduct.Aninvestigation ensuedwhichincluded,inparticular,retrievingtheGrievor'scomputerizedparkingrecords.These recordswerecomparedwithMr.Koscik'sweeklyovertimerequestibrms,Thecomparisonindicatedthat therewereamyriadofoccasionswhenthetwodklnotmatch.Hehadclaimedovertimeonnumerous occasionsafterhiscarhadleftthetot.MeetingswereheldwithMr.Kosciktosockanexplanationforthe discrepancies.HospitalofficialswerenotsatisfiedwithhisexplanationortheGrievor'scavalierattitude. Havingtakenallmuttersintoconsiderationincludinghisallegedmisconductandwhattheyconsidered timetheft,Mr.Koscikwasterminated.Theletterofterminationdatedtbe29hdayofJune2010readas follows: "Wediscussedanumbero]"hlcidentswithmyself,vendors,andotherstaffwherebyyour behm'iourswereblappropriateattdinsubordinate.Specifically: Youpittyourowlzobjectiw.'saheado]'patientcarewhetlyourefusedtorepairaradiation treatmetltunituntilyourdemattdsJbraspecificnumberofadditionalstaffhadbeenmet. -2 Thiswasarepairthatcanbeperformedbytwoqualifiedandexperiencedindividuals.Youtookthisstancede.spitethe.factthat(l)youareqaalifiedtoperformtherepah',(2)thesameiypeofrepairhadpreviouslybeenperformedseveraltimesinourclinicbytwopeople,and(3)the hospitalofferedtobrbtghisecondqualifiedpersontoassist.'Onaseparateoccasion,youagaindeclinedtoperformataskthatyouarequalifiedand capableofcomplethlg:installationofalasersystem.Itwasmadecleat"toyouthatatO'potentialassistancereqah'edwouldbesupplied.}"oarargumentthatinstallationoflasersforthis particularmachinedifferedcomparedtoothermachhesisnotcredible.Onathirdoccasion,Ireceivedaverbalreportfi'omoneofourvendors.Thevendor expressedseriousconcet71tohieregarding3"o111"behaviourtowardshim,andthepotentialconsequencesitmighthaveforthefatarerelatiotiship.Hedescribedanincidentwhereyoltreactedtonewsofaserviceagreementbetweenthehospitalandthevendor.Bothyourtoneand yourspecificstatementswereinappropriate,Whenconfrontedwiththeseallegationsdarblgourfirstmeeting,yousuggestedthatthiswashifactanamiablediscussion.However.tilevendorhas madeitclearthatitwaxnotperceivedassuch, Thesebehaviourstowardsothershave&imagedthereputationofLakeridgeHealthandthe relationshipbem'eenntyselfi3"o111"co-workersando111"sapl)liers. IVithrespecttotherecvrdsdiscrepaacyymtwereunabletoprovideacredibleandjustifiable explanationforthesediscrepancieswhichrestdtedhiyourimproperclaimingandreceiptofapproxintately$7940.Youdeniedthatyoufalsifiedyourtimesheetsandinsteadclaonedthatyouwereauthorizedbynlanagenlemtoclabnforthesehoursastimeworked.Thisisnotthecaseand theHospitalhasthereforeconcludedthatyoufalsifiedyourtinlesheetsonapproxintately124 occasionsshweMay2009,BasedontheabovetheHospitalhasconchtdedthatyouengagedhta deliberatecoarseofaction,wherebyyourepeatedlyfalsifiedyourthnesheetssoastoclahn payntentfi)rmorehotowthenyouactuallyworked." Youractionshifitlsifyhlgyourtimesheetsassetoutaboveconstitateaseriousbreachoftrust thatis.hmdameataltotheeolploymemrehttioashipandhaveirreparablydamagedthe employmentrelationship.Furthermore,youhaverefasedtoacknowledgeatO'wrongdoingand hsistthatyoahavedonenothingwrong.Therefore,youremploymentistermhlatedeffective intmediatelyforjustcause.Inthealternativethefalsif'htgofyourtimesheetscombhledwiththe hlappropriatebehavioursdescribedabove,amounttojustcauseforthetermhationofyour enlploymenL Forhispart,Mr.Koscikadamantlydeniesanywrongdoing.FurtherMr.delJunco,counselfortheunion, tookthepositionthattheparkingrecords,beingelectronicinnature,oughtnottobeadmittedorrelied uponasevidenceintheseproceedings,htanyevent,Mr.Koscikhadgoodandvalidexplanationsfor whatappearedtobediscrepanciesbetweenhisovertimeclaimsandthelesserhoursappearingonhis parkingrecordsattheHospital. Inadditiontotheconductforwhichhewasterminated,Ms.MichelleHenry,counselfortheHopsital, submittedtherewerefurlherreasonsinthiscaset)rwhichreinstatementwouldnotbeappropriate.The Grievorhadengagedinconductfollowinghisterminationwhichputthereputationandoperationofthe -3 Hospital'snuclearfacilityinjeopardy.Havingengagedinaconflictofinterestofthatnature,tileGrievor demonstratedthathewasnotanappropriatecandidateforreinstatementasatrustedemployeeofthe Hospital. Ihaveconsideredcarefullytheparties'submissionsandconcluded,amongstotherthings,thattile Employer'sevidenceincludingtheparkingrecordswereproperlybelbreme.1amalsooftheviewthat theevidencewassufficientlyclear,convincingandcogenttodemonstrateonthebalanceofprobabilities thatMr.Koscikdidindeedclaimovertimehoursfortimeduringwhichheneitherworkednorwaspresent onHospitalproperty.Finally,Iamoftheviewthatthisisnotacaseinwhichitwouldbejustand reasonabletoreinstatetheGrievororsubstitutealesserpenaltylbrthatofdischarge.Mydetailedoutline ofthematterandmyreasonsfollowbelow. TlieEvidence-theParkingRecords Asindicatedearlier,Mr.delJuncotookthepositionthattheparkingrecords,althoughreceivedduring theseproceedingsoughtnottobeadmittedasevidenceorreliedonasproofoftheircontent.Itwashis positionthattheEmployerhadnotadducedadequateevidencetosatisfytherequirementsofThe EvidenceActwithregardtotheadmissionofsuchrecords.Further,althoughanarbitratorhasjurisdiction toadmitevidencewhichmightnotbeadmissibleinacourtoflaw,1oughtnottodosowithrespectto theserecordssincetheyare,ineffect,uncorroboratedhearsay. Retewmttothisissuearethefollowinglegislativeprovisions: LabourRelationsActofOntario Section48(12)AJtarbitratororthechairofanarbitrationboard,asthecasemaybe. haspower, (Dtoaccepttheoralorwrittenevidenceasthearbitratoro1"thearbitrationboard,asthe casemaybe.initsdiscretionconsidetwproper,whetheradmissibleinacourtoflawor not"s, -4 EvidenceActofOntario Electronicrecords Definitions Inthissection "electronicrecord"meansdatathatisrecordedorstoredonanymediuntinor byacomputersystemorothersimiho"device,thatcanbereadorperceivedbya personoracomputersystemorothersintilardevice,andinchtdesadispho', prbltotttorotheroutputofthatdata,otherthanaprintoutreferredtoill snbsection(6; Authentication 4Thepersonseekingtohltroduceanelectronicrecordhastireburdenof provingitsauthenticitybyevidencecapableofsupportingafindingthatthe electronicrecordis"whatthepersonclaimsittobe. Applicationofbestevidencerule 5Subjecttosubsection(6),wherethebestevidenceruleisapplicablein respectofanelectronicrecord,itissati.sfiedonproofoftireintegrityofthe electronicrecord. Same 5.Thehltegrityofanelectronicrecordmaybeprovedbyevidenceofthe integrityoftheelectronicrecordssystembyorinwhichthedaiawasrecordedor stored,orbyevidencethatreliableeneryptiontechniqueswereusedtosupport theflrtegrityoftheelectronicrecord. Whatconstitutesrecord 6Anelectronicrecordilltheformofaprintoutthathasbeenmanifestl)'or consistentlyactedon,reliedupon,orusedastherecordofthebrfornration recordedorstoredontireprintout,istirerecordforthepurposesofthebest evidencertde. Presuntptionofintegrity 72Intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary,theintegrityoftireelectronic recordssystembyorinwhichanelectronicrecordisrecordedorstoredis provedforthepurposesofsubsection(5), (a) byevidencethatsupportsafindingthatatallmaterialtimesthe computersystemorothersimilardevicewasoperatingproperly or,ifitwastrot,tilefactofitsnotoperatingproperlydidtrot aJ]Octtheitrtegrityoftheelectronicrecord,attdthereareno otherreasonablegrmmdstodoubttheintegrityoftheelectroaic recordssystem; (b)ifitisestablishedthattheelectronicrecordwasrecordedor storedbyapart)'totileproceedingwhoisadverseininterestto thepartyseekingtobrtroduceit;or (c)ifitisestablishedthattheelectronicrecordwasrecordedor storedhrthensrmlandordinaTcoro'seofbusinessbyaperson -5 whoisnotapartytotheproceedingandwhodidtrotrecordo1" storeitunderthecontrolofthepart),seekingtointroducethe record. Standards 8(Forthepurposeofdeterminingunderanyruleof&wwhetheran electronicrecordisadmissible,evidencemaybepresentedinrespectofany standard,procedure,usageo!"practiceonhowelectronicrecordsaretobe recordedorstoredhavingregardtotiretypeofbasbressoreadeavourthatused, recordedo1"storedtheelectrotticrecordandthenatureandpurposeofthe electronicrecord. Proofbyaffidavff 9Themattersreferredtoinsubsections(6),(7)and(8)maybeestablished byanaffidavitgiventothebestofthede.ponent's"knowledgeandbelief. Definitions 35hrthissection, "'bushress""hwhaleseveO,kindofbushTess,pro/,ssioo,oeeu.pation,calthTg. operationoractivity,whethercarriedon/brpm/?torotherwise:("enterprise"') "record'"includesan)"ir?/brmationthatisrecordedo!'storedb),meansofany device.("document"')R.S.O1990.e.E.23,s.35(I). Wherebusinessrecordsadmissible 2(AtO,writingo1"recordmadeofanyact,transaction,occurrenceo1"eventis admissibleasevidenceofsuchact,transaction,occurrenceoreventifmadeht theusualandordhrarycourseofanybusitressandifitwasintheusualand ordOtaO"courseofsuchbtrshtesstomakesrrehwritbrgorrecordattiretimeof suchact,transaction,occurrenceofeventorwithinareasonabletimethereafter. R.S.O.1990,c.E23,s.35(2). Noticeandprodaction 32Subsection(2)doesnotapplytmlessthepartytetrderingthewritingo1" 'ecordhasgivenatleastsevendaysnoticeoftheparty'shrtentiontoallother .partiesintireaction,andat1)".part)'totheactionisentitledtoobtahtfromthe personwhohaspossessioathereofproductionforinspectionofthewritingor recordwithinfivedaysaftergivingnoticetoproducethesame.R.S.O.1990, e.E.23,s.35(3). Duringthecourseofproceedingstherewasevidencefromtwowitnessesinvolvedintheoperationofthe parkinglot.Ms.DionncMacLeodwasandhadbeenthemanagerofCapitalBudgctsarrdContract AdministrationforLakeridgeHospitalforapproximatelyloutyearswhichincludedtherelevanttime frame.AsContractAdministratorshewasresponsiblefortheparkingfacility.InthatregardtheHospital maintainscontractswiththelollowingcontractors: -6 , StandardParking-providespersonneltoruntheparkingfacilityonadaytodaybasis.Its functionsincludeprovidingpersonneltoruntheparkinglot,takingandorreceivingpaymentsfor parkingandprintingamonthlyactivityreportorrecordfromtheLakeridgeserverwherethatinformationisstored.Thecompanyperformsamonthlyauditofthoserecordsagainstreceiptstoensureaccuracy.TheactivityreportsandauditsarcprovidedtoLakeridgeHospitalonamonthlybasis.TheHospitalmustreportitsrevenueetc.baseduponthcscprinledrecordsforincometax purposes.Ultimately,therecordsarcstoredbyLakeridgeinalockedroomwithintheHospital. Ms.MacLeodtestifiedthatanymalfunctionrequiringrepairoranyunusualissuesarisingwith respecttoproperpaymentarebroughttoherattentionfi)rapprovalasandwhennecessarybyStandard Parking. . AcompanyidentifiedasZeagprovidedtheoriginalequipmentfortheparkingtotincluding entranceandexitequipment,cameras,transponderrecordersandthelike.Thatcompanyisunder contracttomaintaintheequipmentandwhennecessaryattendtoitsrepair.Onanyoccasion whenthereisamalfunctioninthatequipmentorarepairrequired,StandardParkingnotifiesMs. MacLcodoftheproblemandtheneedtoinvolveZeag. , Withrespecttotheelectronicstorageoftheinformationandrecords,itgoesdirectlyintoaserver ownedbyLakeridge.AnyproblemsinthatregardarereportedtoMs.MacLeodwhomust engagetheLakeridgccomputertechnicalexpertsfromtheITDepartmenttoseetotheproblem. Ms.MacLeoddidnottestifythatshehadreceivedreportsofanysignificantproblemswithanyof theequipmentduringtherelevanttimeframehere.Shewasoftheviewthattheinformation storedintheserveraccuratelyreflectedtheinformationreceivedfromequipmentatthegates includingcamerasandtransponders.ItistheobligationofStandardtoreportanydiscrepancies toMs.MacLeod.Althoughsheagreedthatshewasnotherselfatechnicalexpertwithrespectto anyofthesematters,shedidnottestifythattherehadbeenanysignificantreportsoferrorsor malfunctionsinanyoftheequipmentorintheserveritself. Oiltheotherhand,shewasnotspecificallyaskedwhilegivingherevidenceinchieforcrossexamination whetherornoteitherofthecontractorsorherITDepartmentwasrequiredtoengageinrepairsIoanyof theequipmentorsoftwareortheserveritselfduetosomemalfunction. InadditiontoMs.MacLeod,Mr.NadeemRashidtestifiedasseniormanagerofStandardParking.Heis andwasresponsibleforthemanagementandoperationoftheHospital'sparkingfacility. HctestifiedthattherecordsfromtheparkingfacilityareownedbyLakeridgewhereasStandardmanages theequipment,material,dataandsoftwarewithinthefacility.Mr.Rashidtestifiedthatactivityreports aregeneratedfromtheserver.Hisorganizationhasnocapacitytoalteranyofthedatastoredthere.The parkingequipmentreadsinformationfromanemployee'stransponderandthatinlirmationflowsintothe systemandisultimatelystoredintheserver. -7 TheEvidentaryIssueDiscussionandDetermination Althoughparkingrecordshavebeenadmittedandrelieduponinotherarbitrationproceedings(Seetbr instance:Rc.WilliamOsierHealthCentre&S.E.I.U.Local204(2002),71C.L.A.S.165(Brent);Re. WilliamOsierHealthCentrc&S.E.I.U.Local145(2011),105C.L.A.S.6(R.L.Levinson)),theprccisc natureoftheobjectionraisedbyMr.delJuncofortheUnionheredoesnotappcartohavcbeendirectly broughtforwardinthosecases.Here,rel:rringtotileEvidenceActandinparticularsection34(5),(5.1) andsubsection(7),Mr.dclJuncotookthepositionthattheEmployerproducednotechnicalexpertto giveevidenceoftheintegrityoftheelectronicrecordssystem.Further,hesubmittedthattherewasno evidencepursuanttosubsection(7)(a)that"atallmaterialtimesthecomputersystemorothersimilar devicewasoperatingproperly". 1haveconsideredthosesubmissionsandtheprovisionsofsection34andamoftheviewthatthe requirementrespectingtheintegrityofthecomputersystemneednotrequiretheevidenceofatechnical expert.Rathcr,therequirementisforevidencetosupportafindingthatthecomputersystemwas operatingproperlyatallmaterialtimesor,ifnot,tbatanymalfunctiondidnotaffecttheintegrityoftile records.Inthiscase,Ms.MacLeod,althoughshewasnotdirectlyinvolvedinoverseeingtiledaily operationoftheparkinglotortheserver,asmanageroftileoperationforthehospitalwasinIbrmedof anyfunctionalproblemsbothmechanicalandelectronicandconsultedwithrespecttoanyproposed repairsormaintenance.AstheLakeridgeHospitalManagerresponsiblefortheoveralloperationofthe parkinglot,itismyviewthatherevidencewassufficienttosatisfytherequirementsofsection7(a)ofthe legislation.Shedidnottestify,asonemightotherwisehaveexpected,thattherewererecordingproblems thatwerebroughttoherattentionordiscrepanciesbetweentheparkingrccordsandtherevenuesreported. Furthermore,inthewordsofsection7(a)therewere"nootherreasonablegroundstodoubttileintegrity oftheelcctronicrecordssystem".Indeed,Mr.delJuncodidnotassert,nordidMr.Koscik,theGriewr, challengethattherecordsofhisentranceandexitfromtheparkinglotduringanyrelevantperiodwere inaccurate.Althoughonecouldnotexpecthimtorecallanyspecificdayonwhichhemighthaveentered -8 orexitedattimesotherthanthoserecorded,ingeneral,hedidnotchallengethatthetimesrecorded unfairlyreflectedhisparkingusage.Inthecircumstances,itismyviewthattheparkingrecordscouldbe properlyadmittedandrelieduponpursuanttotheseprovisionsoftheEvidenceAct. Inmakingthatdetermination,IshouldnotethatIwasnotprovidedwithjurisprudenceconcerningthe interactionofthesevariousprovisions.Furthermoreand,perhaps,moreimportantly,counseldidnot addressthemeaningofsubsection(6)ofs.34.Inotethatsection34(5)istoberead"subjecttosubsection (6)".Thelatterprovisionindicatesthatanelectronicrecordwhichhasbeenreducedtoprintedh)rmmay constitute"therecordsforthepurposesofthebestevidencerule".Thatissoprovidedtheprintouthas been"consistentlyactedc,n,reliedupon,orusedastherecordoftheinformationreportedorstoredonthe printout".Asindicatedearlierinthisaward,theparkingrecordsareprintedmonthlyandarerationalized againsttherevenuescollectedfortheparkinglotoperation.Thoseprintedrecordsareusedbythe Hospitaltoreportitsrevenuesfortheparkinglotaspectofitsoperations.Inthecircumstances,the printoutsthemselvesmayconstitutetherecordforthepurposesofthebestevidencerule.AsIunderstand theinteractionofthesesubsections,theintegrityoftheelectronicsystemitselfmaynothavetobeproven wheretheprintoutssatisfythercquircmentsofsubsection6.Ifthatis,indeed,themannerinwhichthese provisionsinteract,Iamsatisfiedthattheprintedparkingrecordswhichareregularlyretained,storedand relieduponbytheHospitalsatisfytherequirementsofsubsection6ofsection34.Accordingly,theyare themselvesadmissibleasthebestevidenceavailableconcerningtheingressandegressofMr.Koscik's cartoandfromtheparkinglotduringtherelevanttimefi'amc. IfIamwrongwithrespecttotheapplicationoftheEvidenceActprovisions,Iam,noned'teless,satisfied that1havethepowerpursuanttosection48(12)(0oftheLabourRelationsActtoacceptthewritten parkingrecordslorthesepurposeswhetherornottheywouldbeadmissibleinacourtoflaw.Itismy viewthat,absenlanyevidencewhatsoeverthattheydonotaccuratelyreflecttheinformationrecorded,it isappropriatetoadmitandrelyontheminthiscase.Inthatregard,IrefertothedecisionofArbitrator RandyLevinsoninReWilliamOsierHealthCentrearidC,U.P.E.,Local145(Simon),105C.L.A,S.6; -9 2011CLV3866(Omario)(R.L.Levhrson),Februar)'7,2011.Atparagraph6ofhisawardarbitrator Levinsondealingwiththeparkingrecordsmadethesecomments: "6.Aftercarefidlyconsiderbgtheparties'sabmissioasandtireevidenceadduced,1conchtdethat theevidencewassufficientlyclea;convhrchrgandcogenttoproveonabalanceofprobabilities thattiregrievorengagedhrtbnethef.Whiletireparkingrecordsarenotconclusive,the)'raisetire presnmptioathatcertabhotowweretrotworked,andthe)'canbereliedonhrtireabsenceofany credibleevidencetorebutthatpresumption.SeeReWilliamOsierHeahhCentreandS.E.I.U., Local204(2002),71C.L.A.S.165(Brent)atparagraph53.btthatcase,thearbitratorapheMthe dismissalofalongserviceentployeeformakingseveralfraudulentchdmsforcompensationbased onboarsshedidtrotwork.hithepresentcircumstances,Ifindthereisanabsenceofcredible evidencetorebuttheaccuracyoftheparkhrgrecords,whichshowwhenthegrievor'scat"arrived atandlefttheworkplace.Morepartiealar135Ifindthattireparkingrecordsproren'hatdaystire grievorarrivedlateforwork,attdwhatdayssheleftworkearly.Inthatregard,1donotfindthe sarronndingeh'camstaneestobesufficientlyprobativetoobjectivelyandplausiblypointtosome othereonchlsiolr." Iamsatisfiedhere,aswasArbitratorLevinson,thatthoserecordsmaybeproperlyrelieduponinthis case. Inadditiontothechallengetotireadmissionoftheparkingrecordspursuanttosection34oftheEvidence Act,Mr.delJuncoalsochallengedtheuseofthoserecordscontrarytoMr.Koscik'sprivacyrights,in particular,pursuanttoPIPEDA.Iconsideredthatohjectionduringthecourseofproceedingsandruled then,whichrulingIconfirmnow,thatthereisnoprivacyrightsinone'sparkingrecordsandfurtherthat thereisnoexpectationofprivacywithrespecttosuchrecords.Idonotproposetofurtherelaborateon myreasonshereforthoseviewsandthatfinding. AsidefromthosechallengesMr.delJuncohadalsoquestionedtheproprietyofintroducingtheparking recordsasbusinessrecordswithouthavingprovidedhimwithappropriatenoticepursuanttotheEvidence Act.Notwithstandinghisinitialchallenge,hcwassubsequentlyprovidedwitbappropriatenoticewhich heacknowledged.Iunderstandthathisobjectioninthisregardwasthereforewithdrawn.However,ifI ammislakenirtthatview,Iamsatisfied,nonetheless,thatMr.delJuncodidultimatelyreceiveadequate noticeoftheparkingrecordsandhadampleopporttmitytoreviewandchallengethemduringthecourse ofproceedings. -i0 Finally,IamoftheviewthatarbitratorLevinsonaptlydescribedtheroleofthoseparkingrecordsonce theyhadbeenadmittedintoevidenceasIhaveconfirmedinthiscase.Thisbringsmetoanoutlineofthe informationcontainedinthoseparkingrecordsandMr.Koscik'sexplanationofhistimekeepingwith respecttothoserecords. TheEvidenceandEvidentiaryFindings Ms.KatharinaSixelwastileManageroftheNuclearDepartmentandresponsibleforthesafeand continualoperationoftheNuclearAccelleratorswithinherdepartment.Mr.Koscikwasoneoftwo enginceringspecialistswhofunctionedasthefirstresponsetoanyproblemswiththatequipment. Althoughmembersofthebargainingunit,theengineersareprofessionalsintheirfieldandlargelywork independentlyofanysupervision.Theirdailyworkschedulesarecstablishcdsoastoprovidecoverage throughouttheoperatingdayofthedepartment8:00a.m.to5:00p.m.Theengineersalternatedeach weektoworkoneofeither: Firstshift7:00a.m.to3:00p.m. Secondshift10:00a.m.to6:00p.m. Thereis,therefore,anoverlapsuchthattheyarebothondutybetween10:(10a.m.and3:00p.m.daily. Eachisentitledtoanunpaid½hourlunchbreakaswellasafifteenminutereliefperiodduringeachhalf shift.Onoccasion,theNuclearDepartmentwilloperatebeyonditsnormalhourswhichmightalso includesometimeonweekends.Forthatreason,theEngineercoveringthelaterofthetwoshiftsduring theweekinquestionremainsonstandbydutyduringhisoffhoursintheeventofemergencycallback. Thecollectiveagreementprovidesacallbackguaranteeofnolessthanfourhoursatovertimerates. NeitheroftheServiceEngineerswasrequiredtopunchatimeclock;rather,theywereonanhonour systemandwouldrecordtheirownovertimeclaimsonaweeklybasis. datc,thcrationalelbrtheovertimeandthenumberofhoursclaimed. weeklyforapprovalbytheDepartmentManager,Ms.KatbarinaSixcl. Theclaimlormidentifiedthc Thetormwasthensubmitted ShetestifiedthatuntilMayof -li 2010,shehadnoreasontoquestionMr.Koscik'sclaims.Accordingly,exceptonrareoccasionwhenan issuewasapparentontheform,sheroutinelyapprovedhisclaimsandMr.Koscikwaspaidaccordingly. TheotherServiceEngineerinMr.Koscik'sdepartmenthadbeenhiredin2008approximatelytwoyears afterMr.Koscik.Atthattime,onagreementwiththeUnion,anewpositionof"ChargeMedicalPhysics Engineer"wasestablishedwithinthebargainingunit.Mr.Koscikwasassignedtothisldgberpositionin whichamongstotherthingshewasresponsibletoprovide"technicalsupervisionandexpertisetoother medicalphysicsserviceengineerstoensureworkassignmentsmeetperlbrmanceandqualitystandards". AlthoughMr.Koscikwassomethingofaleadhnndtohisco-worker,eachwassubjecttotilesame provisionsrespectinghoursofworkandresponsiblefortheirownindividualovertimeclaims. AlthoughthiscasearoseasaresultofMr.Koscik'sovertimeclaims,criticaltomydeterminationshereis thecredibilityofMr.KoscikespeciallyascontrastedtothalofhisManager,Ms.KatharinaSixel.Since, inpart,herationalizedmostofhisallegedlyinappropriateclaimsonthebasisofsomespecial arrangementwithMs.Sixet,credibilityisofparamountimportance.Asidefromtheglaringfactthat thereisnocorroboratingevidencewhatsoevertosupportMr.Koscik'sclaimsregardingsomespecial arrangementswithMs.Sixel,whichshespecificallydenied,tileGrievor'stestimonywasmorethan questionablewhentestedagainstthatofotherwitnessesregardingmattersotherthanovertime.Hislack ofcandourinthoseinstancesandmyoverallmisgivingsaboutthereliabilityofhistestinronyhas confirmedmyviewthatasbetweenheandMs.Sixel,herevidencemustbepreferred. TheinvestigationintotheovertimeclaimsofMr.Koscikandhisco-workerresultedfromclaimsfiledlot theMay!-2weekendin2010.AnewfifthLinearacceleratorwasbeinginstalledbyElektaCorporation inthecancerfacility.ThetwoEngineershadrequestedandbeengrantedMs.Sixel'sapprovaltoattend andobservetheinstallationthatweekend.ThelollowingMondaymorningsheherselfdroppedbythe sitetoobserveandinquireoftheinstallerhowmatterswereprogressing.Coincidentally,theinstaller mentionedthathehadleftearlyontheSundayinresponsetoafirealarmintheCWing.Hewasalone afterlunchanddidnotwanttobetrappediftheproblemwassignificant.Thatreportwasnotsignificant -12 until,ontheWednesdayofthatweekwhenreviewingMr.Koscik'sovertimeclaimsforthepriortwo weeks,Ms.SixelnotedthathehadclaimedninehoursofovertimefortheSunday.Thisseemedtober inappropriatesincetileinstallerhadsaidthatthetwoEngineersdidnotreturnafterlunch.Belore challengingMr.Koscikorhisco-worker,sheinvestigatedbycheckingtheHospital'sinternalsecurity recordswhichrequiredpasscardscanstomoveintoandoutofcertainareas.Thoserecordsrevealedonly thatthelastactivitynearMr.Koscik'sofficeontheSundaywasjustafter2:(10o'clock.However,that informationdidnotconfirmwhenhehadleftthebuilding.Ms.Sixelwasadvisedtoreviewtheparking lotrecordstodeterminewhenhehadlefttheproperty.Thoseindicatedthathiscarhadbeenonthe propertyfilronly6VzhoursonSundaywhereashisovertimeclaimwasfornine(9)hours.Thiswas troublingsuchthatMs.Sixelwaspromptedtomakeafurthercomparison.Shewasprovidedwith plrkingrecordssettingoutentryandexitfromthelotlbrMr.Koscik'scarfortheperiodJanuarytoMay 2010.Ms.SixclcomparedthoserecordstotheovertimeclaimssubmittedbyandpaidtoMr.Koscik duringthattimeframe.TheanalysisindicatedthatMr,Koscikhadclaimedovertimeafterworkhourson manyoccasionswhenIrebadalreadylefttheHospitalproperty.Ms.Sixelonaspreadsheetisolatedonly thosewhichindicatedaclaimof15minutesofmoreinexcessofIrisrecordedexitfromtireparkinglot. FromJanuarytoMaytherewere54suchincidents.Ms.Sixelwasconcernedthatthiswasnotanisolated incidentbutindicatedapatternofabuse.ShearrangedameetingwithMr.Koscikandhisunion representativeforMay13thinordertoascertainsomeexplanationforthediscrepancies. AttheMay13hmeeting,thekeyissueaddressedandexplainedbyMr,Koscikwashisviewthatin conjunctionwithanovertimeclaimforcallbackoutsideregularhourshewasentitledtochargetravel time.Thisheassertedwasanindustrystandardandapracticehebadfollowedwhenworkingat SmmybrookHospital,hish)rmeremployer.WhenMs.Sixelclarifiedthatthatwasnotthepracticeat Lakeridgc,Mr.Koscikwasdefiantandpersistedinhisposition. -13 Idonotproposetooutlinethetestimonyofeachwitnesshere.Rather,Iwillattemptinwhatfollowsto dealwithmydispositionoftheissuesandmyreasonsforthosefindingsinthecontextoftheevidence introduced. WhileMr.Kosciktestifiedandcontendedthathcwasentitledtoaddtraveltimetohisovertimeclaimon callback,thatcontentionandbeliefwas,inmyview,notbonafidenorwasthereanylegalbasisor legitimaterationaleIbrthatposition.Furthermore,evenifthatwerethecase,Mr.Kosciktookliberties withtheamountoftimeheaddedtohisovertimeclaimsinsuchcircumstances.1havearrivedatthat conclusiontakingintoconsiderationthefollowingfactors: . TileclaimforMay2'dwasfor9hourswhereasMr.Koscikwasonsiteforonly6V2.He explaiiedthe2V:hourdiffcrentialonthebasisthathemissedbothhis½hourlunchandtwo coffccbreaksforonehourandtherestwascomprisedoftraveltime. TilefactthatthcinstallationtechnicianfromElecktamaynothavetakenlunchorcoffeebreaks didnotmeanthatMr.Koscikhimselforhisco-workerwhoweresimplyonsitetoobservethe processwereunabletotaketimeforlunchorbreaks.Therewas,thereflre,nojustificationfor charginganextrahourofovertimeformissedlunchorbreaks.Additionally,thecollective agreementitselfstipulatedthatcompensationmaybepaidforamissedlunchprovidedthatitwas specificallyauthorizcd.Inthiscase,theclaimforamissedlunchbreakwasnotspecifically identifiedonMr.Koscik'sovertimeformnordoIexpectinthecircumstancesMs.Sixelwould haveapprovedtheclaimforthatamounthaditbeensoidentified.Thisisespeciallysowhenshe hadindulgedtileengineer'srequesttoobservetheinstallationontheweekend. . NoneoftheexplanationsfortheexcessovertimechdmedbyMr,Koscikwereidentifiedor detailedonhisovertimeclaimforms.Rather,hetookthepositionthatthesematterswere implicitandthathewasentitledtoaddthetimeorhoursnecessarytoretlectthevariouselements ofhisclaimwithoutspecification. Thatviewisdirectlyincontrasttoane-mailsenttohimbyMs.Sixelin2007clarifyingthat overtimebeyondregularhourswouldbejustifiedifforaspecifictask. . Mr.Koscikclaimedthathewasentitledtotraveltimeoncallbacksinceitwasanindustry standardwhichhchadlbllowedwithhisformeremployer. However,therewasnoevidencewhatsoeverfi'omtheUnionortileGrievortoestablishthatthis was,indeed,anindustrystandardorthat,infact,itwasapracticeorbenefitenjoyedbyMr. Koscikwithhisformeremployer. Inadditiontotheforegoing,thecollectiveagreementatLakeridgespecificallyprovideda mininmmoffourhoursonovertimewhenanemployeeiscalledbacktowork.Italsoprovided compensationformileageinsuchcircumstances.However,itinnowayintimatedorallowedfor anadditionalchargetothelburhourminimumlortraveltime.Therewasnoargumentbythe -14 Unionthatthecollectiveagreementcontemplatedpaymentfortravelonovertimeinsuch circumstances.ItwasinsteadonlytheGrievor'sviewthathewasentitledtoit. Theamountofoneandone-halfhoursidentifiedonthisoccasionbyMr.Koscikfortraveltime wasanarbitraryfigurehechosetakingintoconsiderationlocaltrafficconditionsandwhetherhe wastravellingtoandfromhomeorhiscottage. Evenifanemployeecould,intilecircumstances,chargefortraveltime,itisdoubtfulthatany employerwouldhaveallowedanemployeetoexercisethatdegreeofdiscretiontorhisown benefit. Furthermore,hadMr.Koscikidentifiedthattimeonhisclaimastraveltime,itismorethan doubtfulthatMs.Sixelwouldhaveendorsedthedocumentforapayment. 4, CoincidentallyonoraboutMay12'hMr.Kosciksentanc-mailtohisunionrepresentative,Sara Labelle,identifyinganumberofconcernshehadlothisdepartmentandinparticularheandhis co-workerengineer.AmongthoseconcernswasarecommendationthattheUnionseekan amendmenttotilecollectiveagreementsothattraveltimeoutsideregularbusinesshourswould bepaidatovertimerates. AhhoughinhistestimonyMr.Koscikdistinguishedthatsuggestionasrelatingonlytocaltbacks duringtheweekasopposedtoweekends,thaidistinctionisnotclearinthedocument.Rather,it ismyviewthatnodistinctionwasintendedandMr.Koscikwaswellawarethattraveltimewas notincludedorcoveredinthecollectiveagreementforovertimepay.Thespecificwordsusedby Mr.Koscikinhise-mailareasIbllows: "Fourthissue:Traveltimeduringattdoutsideofworkblghoars.Ourgrouptravelalotfortraiohtg coarses(USAandEurope)astheyaremandatedbyCNSC\NewremotesitesuchPeterboroughthatwilt comeonlinebytheendofthe)'eat"willmakeoartravelloadevenmoredemanding.Thecomplexityattd safeO'oftheroachhieattdpeoplereqah'estwoengbteersworkhtgontheproblemsandoftenextendedhours ofwork.ThatwilltranslatehttotravelingoutsidebusinesshoursquiteofieoOnaybeever3'day),sofar thereisnoprovisiouhtourcontractforthis,WewouldliketobepaidovertimefortravelasitishtdustO" staudard." . AttileconclusionoftheMay13hmeeting,Ms.SixelprovidedMr.Koscikwithacopyofthe documentshepreparedoutliningthecomparisonsbetweenhisclaimsandparkingtimes.The documentwasprovidedtoallowMr.Koscikandopportunitytoconsiderthediscrepanciesandto provideamorefulsomeexplanation. . OnMay17,havingnowhadanopportunitytoreviewthedocumentmorefully,Mr.Koseike mailedMs.SixelaswellashisunionrepresentativeSaraLabelleandMr.JohnHarris,the DirectorofHumanRelationsfortheHospital. WhileitisunderstandablethatMr.Koscikwouldbeunabletorecalldetailsofhisdaysgoing backfromMaytoJanuaryof2010,thenatureofhistimekecpingandclaimsweresuchthatan cxplauationingeneraltermswascalledlbrandprovidedbyMr.Koscikasfollows: "Hereareexplanationsforthnecharged, Startearly.Flexiblestarttiotessauteasphysicists,assistantphysicistandsecretat3"aspetKS, "l)'pical(vIwillstartworkat8:30or9:00AM Thereasonfi)rstarthtgear(ylneedtoperformmydutiesasresourceforstaff(schedaleattdprioritize work,briefstaffonworkhtprogressetc),constructionpersonael(examplebunker7eonstrttetiotOttnd -Jr faciliO"engbteerblg(eamplewaterproblems)OKbyKS ReferenceLHdocumentQMSO3.05DChargeTechnologistJobDescription Overtimeisahvayssubmitted]'orapprovalbyKSandnoquestionswasraisedeverbyKSandifato" problemshappenedsuchasO'poetcahvaysKSnotifiedmeaboutitforresubmissionorshemade corrections Becauseofsheervohmleofovertimepossibilityoferrorexists,hencetheprocessblplace, Workingthroughhmchandcoffeebreaksasonepersondohlgfour-personjob.AsperCNSCfieenseand LHpolicyonlylicensedServiceEngineercanreleasemaehhletotreatment,henceIhavetobeavailable allthetimedurhlgatreatntentday, Weekendovertimeworkisnotscheduledworkitisemergencyrepab"calledinbyServiceEnghteeron StandBy.TraveltimeonovertimeauthorizedbyKShiApril2008. Shoppingforshopsupplies,lusedtodoshopphtgonnlyowntittlenotchargiagartytittletoMDRCC.Iwas DlstructedbyKStodoshoppingonthecompanytime.On28/01/101wasresearchingavaihtbilityof sphminglasersforlasersbstalL" Therearcnumerousdifficultieswiththeseexplanations.Inparticular,Mr.Koscikbecameabargaining unitemployeein2008.Noneofhisexplanationsisgroundedinprovisionsofthecollectiveagreement. FurthermoretheinitialsKSattheendofseverallinessignifiedthathebadmadesomespecial arrangementwithMs.KatharinaSixel,hisManager,tofollowthesepracticeswhenrecordinghistime andovertime.However,hedidnotprovideanexplanationofthatnatureintheMay13thmeeting.His reasonfornotdoingso,hctestified,wasthathedidnotwanttoembarrassMs.Sixelinfrontofother officialsoftheHospitalor"herboss".Presumably,hewasreferringtoMr.Harris,thcDirectorof HumanRelations,whohecopiedwithhisMay17the-mail.Withrespecttothosespecialarrangcments, Mr.KosciktestifiedthathehadoriginallydiscussedthcissueofovertimepayfortravelwithMs.Sixel priortohishavingbeenhiredin2006.Additionally,hisevidencewasthatthisarrangementwasrenewed priortohisinductionintothebargainingunitin201)8. 1haveconsideredhistestimonyandthatofMs.Sixelwhodeniedanysuchspecialarrangementswith regardtotravelortheotheritemsstipulatedinhisMay17the-mail.ItisnayviewthatMs.Sixel's testimonymustbeprel:rred. Mr,Koscik'sassertionthathedidnotwanttoembarrassMsSixelattheMay13hmeetingwasnot credible.Surelytheexistenceofanyspecialagreementwithhismanagerregardingovertimewouldhave -16 beenadvancedimmediatelywhenhisclaimswerefirstchallenged.Inanyevent,ifMr.Koscikbelieved hehadsuchanagreementwithMs.Sixelandthatshebadauthoritytomakesucharrangements,there wouldhavebeennoreasonforhertobeembarrassed.Furthermore,onewouldexpecthewouldnothave copied"herboss"\vithhisMay17'he-mailifhewaslegitimatelyconcernednottoembarrassMs.Sixel. Itismyviewthatthisexplanation,centraltoMr.Koscik'spositionwastotallycontrived. AsindicatedearliertherewereotherfactorsmilitatingagainstsuchspecialarrangementsforMr.Koscik's overtime.WhenMr.Koscikwasadmittedtothebargainingunit,theHospital'shumanresourceofficer. notMsSixel,e-mailedMrKoseikthat""...\\econfirmedwithtileunionthatyoucallkeepyour4weeks vacation.Thisisbecauseyouwereexemptfirstandsotheyagreedwithusthatwewouldnotwanttotake anythingawayfi'omyou'.The4weekswas,ofcoarse,morethanprovidedIbrathissenioritylevelintile collectiveagreement.Hadtherebeenmoretothosearrangementsbeyondthoseinthecollective agreement,inparticalaranyregardingovertime,onewouldhaveexpectedthosetoowouldhavebeenput intoprintoratleastrecordedinsomeway.Instead,wehaveonlyMr.Koscik,severalyearslater, justifyinghisovertimeclaimbyassertingsomespecialarrangementwithMs.Sixel.Inthecircumstances, IdonotacceptMr.Koscik'stestimonythatheenjoyedsuchspecialarrangementswithrespecttohis traveltime,letaloneflextimelbrreportingearlyorthathewasentitledtoclaimovertimeh)rshopping. Indeed,withrespecttothislatterelcmem,Ms.Sixeldidconfirmthatshehadfromtimetotime authorizedandevensuggestedthattileengincerspickuphardwarepiecesatHomeDepotonHospital time;however,thesuggestionwasthattheyslipontduringtheirregularhoursnotthattheyshouldgo shoppingonovcrtime.Theclaimofentitlementtoflexiblereportingtimeathispersonaldiscretionwas totallywithoutfoundation.Indeed,whencalledinearly,thetimebecomespartof"call-back'"hoursand mustbcreportedandclaimedassuch.Finally,withrespecttotraveltime,hadM.Koseikmadethese specialarrangementswithMs.Sixelthathehadasserted,itwouldhavebeenunnecessaryforhimto suggesttohisunionrepresentativethatsheseekthatbenefitforhimandhisco-workerinthecollective agreement. -17 Asindicatedearlierinthisaward,whereMr.Koscik'stestimonyconflictedwiththatofMs.Sixel,Iprefer thatoftheManager.Furthermore,therewasnojustificationpursuanttothecollectiveagreementorany specialarrangementwilhMs.Sixelforhimtochargetheexcesstimewhichhesubmittedonsomany occasions.Toreiteratethecurlierfacts,1believetherewerenolessthanfifty-four'(54)claimsinexcess ofilfieen(15)minutesfromJanuaryof2010toMayofthatyear.WhileMr.Koscikmighthavefeltin hisownmindthathewasentitledtocreditforthetimeorhoursheclaimed,therewasnoprovision pursuanttothecollectiveagreementorotherbonafidebasisforhimtomakethoseclaims.Furthermorc, hadhetrulyfcllorbelievedthathewasentitledtocreditfortravelhoursand/orforflextimeforhis morningreport,becouldeasilyhaveclarifiedthoseclaimsonhisovertimesubmissions.However,hedid notdoso.Further,itismyviewthathefailedtoidentifyorsegregatethosehoursfromotherovertime boutssincehebelievedthattheywouldnotbcdetectedsohmgastheywerenotmadeclear.Therewas, therelbre,asignificantelementofsubterfugeinbiswrittenovertimeclaims.Thoseelementsofovertime whichhetestifiedwere"'implicit"inhiswrittenclaimswerehourswhichwereincludedwithout identification,permissionorauthorization. Inthecircumstances,Iamsatisfied,notwithstandingMr.Koscik'ssenseofentitlement,thathewasguilty ofculpableconductwithrespecttorecordingofhisovertime.Isuspectthathemighthavebelievedthat, ifthcexcessorexcesseswerefoundoat,someadjustmentwouldbemadeandhewouldthereaftertow theline.However,itishardtobelievethatMr.Koscikdidnotrealizehewasexploitingthehonour systemespeciallywhenhedidnotrecordthedetailoftheclaimshehasnowattemptedtorationalize.In thecircumstances,Mr.Koscikengagedinseriousmisconductwhichmeritedasignificantresponse.Had heacknowledgedtheimproprietyofhisovertimeclaims,thehospitalmighthaveimposedsomelesser harmofdisciplineasitdidinthecaseofhisco-worker.However,MrKoscik'sobstinacyregarding overtimeagainstabackgroundofotherrecentchallengingbehaviourprovedfatal.Indeed,hiseffortsto switchresponsibilitytohismanager,Ms.Sixelandhiscontinuedfailureduringtheseproceedingstotake ownershipofthemisrepresentationofhisovertimehavemadearemedialapproachmorethandifficult. -i8 Worsestill,therewereotherelementsinevidencewhichhavemadethesubstitutionofsomeotherform ofdisciplineuntenable. OutlinedintileterminationlettertoMr.Koscikwerethreeotherincidents.Twoofthoseoccurredbefore theovertimeissuecametoahead.Thethirdoccurredshortlythereafterbuthadbeendocumentedbefore anddiscussedwithMr.KoscikattheMay13hmeeting. Tilefirstandthesecondincidenteachinvolvedanallegeddegreeofinsubordination.OnApril28tlMs. SixelandMr.KoscikhadmetinthemorningknowingthatoneoftheLinearAcceleratorsrequiredrepair. Toaccomplishthis,the"head"ofthemachineneededtoberemoved.Thiswasnotaonemanjob;Ms. SixelofferedtoengagetheassistanceofoneotherengineerfromSunnybrookHospital.Amongstother things,Mr.Koscikrefusedtoparticipatesuggestingsuchphysicalworkwasnotwithinhisjoh description.Ultimately,Ms.SixelengagedtwopersonsfromSunnybrookwhoremovedthe"head"while Mr.Koscikdidtheelectronicrepair.However,thedelayresultedinthelossofanentireshiftofpatient treatmentwiththatpieceofequipment. EvidenceduringtheproceedingsindicatedthattileerectionoftheAflamehoistneededtoremovethe headoftheequipmentwasnotasimplematterandcouldrequiretheeflbrtsofatleasttwopersons. WhileIamsatisfiedthattherewassomeriskfactorinw)lved,itwasalsoclearfromthetestimonyand,I preferMs.Sixel'sevidenceinthisregard,thatMr.Koscikdidnotclarifythathewasconcernedwithany safetyrisk.Rather,hewasrefusingbecausetheprocessinvolvedmorephysicaleftbrtthanhewas preparedtoundertake.Ms.Sixclwasconcernedwithhisrefusaland,inparticular,themannerinwhich heresisted,lndecd,hadshebeenawareofthesafetyrisksshewouldnothavetakenissuewithMr. Koscik'srefusal.Inthecircumstances,Ifindthattherewasadegreeofinsubordinationinvolvedinthe incidentinthattheGrievor,inaninsolentmanner,refusedtheworkwithoutidentifyingclearlythattberc wasasafetyissueunderlyinghisconcerns. -19 AfewdayslatcrMs.SixclagainaskedMr.Kosciktoperformaphysicalpieceofwork.Tocompletethe installationofthenewLinearAccelerator,somelaserequipmentnecessarytotargettheraysalsorequired installation.Ms.SixelaskedMr.KosciktoperformtheworkwiththeassistanceoftileElecktainstaller whowouldidentifytheappropriatepositionsfortheequipment.AlthoughMr.Koscikhadperformed similarworkillthepast,herefusedonthisoccasionassertingthathewouldhavetoreaduponthe equipmentbelbrehecouldperformthetask.Ultimately,theElectkainstallerhimselfpositionedand installedthelaserequipmentthatday.TherewasnoexplanationlortheomingfromMr.Koscikastohow theinstallation,3ftheselaserswouldhavedifferedfromorbeensocomplexastorequireanysignificant downtimetoreviewinstallationmaterial.Indeed,therewasnowrittenmaterialintroducedoridentified ofacomplexnaturetosubstantiatetheGrievor'sexplanatiou.Again,thereisanelementof insubordinationinMr.Koscik'srefusaltoperformthetaskathand.AsIunderstoodtheevidcnce,this wasnotacaseinwhichtheGrievorwassayingsimplyIneedafewminutestolookoverthematerial, rather,hewasrefusingtodotheworkatthattimeoranytimethatday. Astothethirdincident,Ms.Sixelwasnotdirectlyinvolved.Rather,duringthatfirstweekinMaywhen installationofthenewLinearAceelleratorwasreachingitsconclusion,Mr.ChristianBretonasales representativeforElektawasonsitetoobserveprogress.Mr.BretontestifiedthattheGrievorenquired astowhetherornotElektahadaservicecontracttoperformmaintenanceandrepairsalterthe installation.Uponlearningthatthiswasthecase,Mr.KoscikbecameangryandwarnedMr.Bretonthat aftercompletionoftheinstallation,onlyunionizedworkerssuchashimselfwouldbeentitledtoworkon thcpremisesand,,mthatcquipment.Theservicesofanynon-unic.mworkerwouldbeabreachofthe Hospital'scollectiveagreement.Mr.BretonunderstoodMr.Koscik'sremarksasathreattothis company'sfuturerelationshipwiththeHospitalandtotheworktheyhadcontractedtoperform.Mr. BretonreportedhisconcernstohissuperiorsandthematterultimatelywascommunicatedtotheHospital. -20 Mr.KoscikinhistestimonydescribedhisconversationwithMr.Bretonasamiableandnotthreatening. However,Mr.BretonhadnoreasontomisrepresentwhathadoccurredbetweenbeandMr.Koscikand again,IamsatisfiedthatMr.Koscik'stestimonycannotbetakenatfacevalue. TakingthesemattersintoconsiderationitisclearthatMr.Koscikdidnothavethebestinterestofthe Hospitalinmind.HewasconcernedforhisowninterestsbothindealingwithMs.Sixelandthetasks sheaskedhimtoperformaswellasinhiscontinuedstakeinavailableandexpandingserviceworkwith respecttothenewLinearAccelerator.Whileanemployeeisentitledtoidentifyhislegitimaterightsand tocommunicatehisconcernsforthosetohisEmployer,thisdoesnotgivehimorheralicenceto challengelegitimatedirectionswithoutreasonableexplanationnortoengagewithathirdpartyina challengetohisEmployer'slegalrelationshipwiththatparty.TheseincidentsindicatethatMr.Koscik waspreparedtoputhisowninterestabovethoseoftheHospital'sandalsoincontradictionorconflict withtheauthorityofhisimmediateManager,Ms.KatharinaSixel.Takingthesemattersinto considerationasabackdroptoMr.Koscik'sexcessiveandrepeatedovertimeclaims,itisdifficultto rationalizehisreinstatement.Whiletheconductissuesmighthavebeendealtwithbywayofprogressive discipline,hisrefusaltorecognizetheovertimeproblemashisownandnotMs.Sixel'sisaserious impedimenttoanyrelief.Bethatasitmay,theothersignificantmattersmilitatingagainstreinstatement occurredafterand,indeed,severalmonthsafterhistermination. PostTerminationElements AfterMr.KoscikhadbeenterminatedinJuneof2010,threelhrthermattersaroseeachofwhichwas precipitatedbyMr.Koscikhimself: I.OnoraboutOctober8,2010Mr.Koscike-mailedMr.KevinEmpey,theCEOofLakeridgc Hospital.Thelbllowingisanextractfromthatc-maillettertoMr.Empey: "YouarehardworkhgCEOwithambitiousgoalstomakeLHObestandmostefficienthospital#t thecoanoT.IhaveobservedyoureffortsandhardworkattdIthhlkIshouldletyouknowhthe spirit"ContactKevin"thatnO'bossKatharinaSixe/madea"greatdealwithElekta"spendhlg -21 $3,000,000.00dollarsofLHOmoneyonservicecontractforElektau'eamtentmachinethatcould havebeendonebyhzhouseenghwetwforlesthan$500.000,00dollars. TheletterwentontoclarifyMr.Koscik'sviewthatMs.Sixelwasresponsibleforanexcessively expensivenewservicecontractwithEtekta.Itwouldhavebeenpreferabletosimplyhavein houseengineersincludinghimselflookaftertheequipment.Mr.Koscikproceededinhisletter tooutlinehisfineemploymentrecordandtheinjusticeofhistermination. Mr.KoscikexplainedhimselfinhistestimonyasbeingconcernedfortheHospitalandexcessive spendinginthecancercentre.Hewassimplybeingagoodcitizen. AsidefromthefactthattheservicecontractdidnotentailthecostsattributedtoitbyMr.Koscik, Ms.Sixelherselfwasnotresponsibletbrthataspectofthebusiness.Rather,Mr.PeterDickson, theVicePresidentoftheHospitalandhisCommitteewouldhavemadedecisionsofthattorture. Inanyevent,Ms.SixelfeltthatsheandtheCancerCentreitselfhadbeenmalignedinMr. Koscik'slettertoMr.Empey. . SometimeinJuneof2011Ms.SixelwasinconversationwithaMr.RichardWhithamwhowas atthattimeSalesManagerforEasternOntarioforSeimensTechonology.Thatcompanywas licensedbytheCanadianNuclearSafetyCommission(CNSC)aswasLakeridgeHospitalCancer Centre.ThreeoftheLinearAcceleratorsattheHospitalwereSiemens'installations.Inthe courseoftheirdiscussionMr.WhithammentinnedthathehadhadaphonecallinJanuaryor Februaryof2011fromMr.Koscik.HewasfamiliarwiththeGrievorhavingbeentheservice managercoveringLakeridgeHospitalforhisCompanyfrom2006to2008.Mr.Whitham testifiedthathewasshockedbythephonecall.Mr.Koscikwasofferingto"'protect"Seimens liccncewiththeCNSCand"hewishedtospeakwithmeandmymanagementtosaveusfrom beingtakendown"ashewasgoingtotakedowntheDurhmnRegionalCancerCentreand KatharinaSixelherself.Mr.Whithamtestifiedthathewasshockedandunabletorespondexcept thathewouldspeakwithhisofficeandgettheirviewsastoanappropriatecourseofaction.He -22 didso,and,theyconfirmedthatSeimenshadnoproblemwiththeCNSCand,inparticular,no licensingproblem.TherewasnoneedtospeakfurtherwithMr.Koscik.Mr.Whithamwenton toexplainthathesharedthisinformationsomemonthslaterwithMs.Sixel,Incrossexamination Mr.WhithamwasquitedefinitethatMr.Koscik'scallwasnotforthepurposcofrequestingwork oranewpositionbutwastoimplicitlythreatenthelicensesofbothSeimensandLakeridge.Mr. WhithamalsoconfirmedthathewasawareMr.Koscik'semploymenthadterminatedat Lakeridgesometimeearlierbutwasnotinformedastothereasonsforthattermination,wbethcr fortheftorotherwise.HedidrecallhoweverthatMr.Koscikwasveryupsetandangryand seemedintenttocauseproblems. Mr.KosciktestifiedthathetoldMr.Whithamthathewaslookingforwork,HeknewMr. WhithamwasnowintheSalesDepartmentbuthopedthathecouldpulinagoodwordforhimin theservicearea.TherewasmuchmoretowhichtheGrievortestifiedintermsofthat conversationbutlittleofthatwasrelevantnorwasitputdirectlytoMr.Whitham,Mr.Koscik deniedhavingdiscussedwithMr,WhithamanypotentialcontactwiththeCNSCregarding SiemensorLakeridge.Hedid,however,agreethathedidcontacttheCNSCrespecting Lakcridge.Furthcrmore,heinquiredoftheCNSCconcerningLakcridge'slicense.Whenhe discoveredthataninspectionhadtakenplaceatEakcridgc,hcaskedtheCNSCforacopyofthe report,ThatserviceinspectionwasbasedinpartonCNSClearningthaiLakcridgehadlosta seniorengineer.Asinthecaseofhislettertothehospital'sCEOcriticizingMs.Sixelandthe Elektaservicecontract,Mr.KoscikagainexplainedthathisconductincontactingtheCNSCwas simplyasaconcernedcitizen.However,heagreedthatliehadnothadoccasiontodothesame whilehewasemployedbythehospitalandwasmorelamiliarwithitsongoingnuclearoperation. , Infact,representativesfromtheCNSCdidperlormaninspectiouofLakeridgeNuclearfacility duringthefirsthalfof201t.Oneoftheinvestigatorsindicatedthattheinspectionhadbeen promptedbyacallfromMr,Koscik. -23 TileDiscussionnndDecision IhaveconsideredthelattereventsandconfirmagainmyconcernsregardingthereliabilityofMr. Koscik'stestimony.InparticularitisinconceivablethatMr.Whithamwouldhavefabricatedhis evidenceconcerninghisphonecallwithMr.Koscik.Ontheotherhand,therewaseveryreasonto believeMr.Koscikwouldmisrepresentthenatureandpurposeofhiscallwhichwastocausetroublefor theHospitalandinparticulartheCancerCentreforwhichMs.Sixelwasrcsponsible.Accordingly,I concludethatMr.KoscikdidindeedcontactMr,Whithamtoadvisethathehadorwouldbecontacting theCNSCtocallintoquestiontheHospital'snuclearlicense.HedidnotcallMr.Whithamtoseek employment.Moreimportantly,hissubsequentcalltotheCNSCwasnotmadeingoodfaithasa concernedcitizenbutwasanotherattempttocausetroubleforthehospital'snuclearoperations. Inallthecircumstances,itismyviewthatthebehaviourofMr.Koscikfollowinghisterminationwas motivatedbyhisdesiretoseekretributionagainstMs.Sixelforhistermination.Furthermore,thefallout fromhisconductimpactedupontheHospitalitselfandinparticularuponitsCancerCentre.Mr.Koscik puthimselfinadramaticcoullictofinterestwithhisformeremployer.Inthccircumstances,his reinstatementwithllkeridgcHospitalwouldbetotallyinappropriate. FortheforegoingreasonsImustupholdMr.Koscik'sterminationanddismisshisgrievance. 12thDATED atTorontothisdayolMarch,2012. ),CARRIER