Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-0025.DePoe.77-09-06Ontario 25175 .----- CROWN EMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT GOARD 616 964-6426 Suite 405 77 Bloor Street Vest‘ TORONTO, Ontario l~f5s lw? IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITMTION Under The CRONII EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAItiING ACT Between: Before: Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Ms. Phyllis DePoe And ,Flinistry of housing D. M. Beatty Chairman '3. W. Henley Member H. E. Weisbach Member For the Grievor: Mr. George Richards Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: Mr. A. P. Tarasuk Central Ontario Industrial Relations Institute Hearings:'. May ZEth, 1976 - Westbury Hotel November ZSth~, 1976 June Znd, 1977 Suite 405, 77 Bloor St. GI. Toronto, Ontario “‘C _’ 2. Mrs. Phyllis DePoe commenced her employment with the Ministry of Housing on July 24, 1972, as a Clerk.3,~ in the Tenant Placement ~Branch of the Ontario Housing Corporation. In that classification Mrs. DePoe performed in a variety of jobs, answering inquiries from prospective tenants and assisting them in completing their applications for units in one of the Corporation's housing facilities. In this regard she was assigned, for the period from April 1973 until April 1974, to the Housing Registry Section in which she actually inter- viewed the applicants and assisted them in completing the necessary documentation. In this capacity, there would appear to be substantial agreement that Mrs. DePoe was a competent and qualified employee. Indeed, in April 1974, and after at~least three earlier unavailing 'attempts, Mrs. DePoe was successful in a competition for the position of Applicant Representative, which is classified at the Clerk 5 level. Mrs. DePoe continued in that position from April 1974, until July 21, 1975, at which time she was, for the reasons described below, demoted back to her former classification of Clerk 3 level in the Housing Registry. It is that decision,which the parties agreed at the outset was not effected as a matterof discipline, which is the subject of this arbitration award and which Mrs. DePoe claims was unjust and unwarranted. Prior to entertaining the written submissions and arguments of the parties on the issue described, the Board heard evidence with respect to the circumstances giving rise to.Mrs. DePoe's complaint over the course of three separate and prolonged hearing days. The extent of that evidence is, not surprisingly, voluminous. However, it is not our intention, in the circumstances of this particular case, to review in detail the testimony of each of the witnesses who appeared before us. Rather, to a great extent we found much of the 3. evidence adduced before us to be repetitious, and simply confirma- tory of certain basic facts VJhich had already been established.to our satisfaction and vihich, beyond any shadow of a doubt, supported the action taken by the employer on July 21, 1975. .In that regard, we would initially note that we are, on the evidence before us, entirely satisifed that throughout the entire period that she held the position of Applicant Representative, Nrs. DePoe was never able or willing to fully or completely discharge .a11 of the duties expected and assigned to that position. That fact, in our view, was unequivocally and objectively substantiated by the testimony of various witnesses which documented, in minute detail, the need to provide Mrs. OePoe with the assistance of other employees and supervisors on an intermittent basis throughout the entire period that she acted as an Applicant Representive. Thus, as early as the summer of 1974, when she was responsible for part of the Central Region, the evidence is uncontradicted that she was first assigned a temporary assistant and then'the full time assistance of a summer student in order to help her cope with the responsibilities and duties of the position. In October of that same year Mrs.Garland, the Kanager of Allocations in the Tenant Placement Branch, requested two other Applicant Representatives, Mrs. Wilson and Miss Gold to help the grievor straighten out the chaos in her office. In January of 1975, Mrs. Garland again 'made additional clerical help available to the grievor and indeed toward the end of that month set aside two days of her own time in order to assist Krs. DePoe i,mpose some system and some organization on her work. In April of that same year, after she had been transferred to the East end team under Kiss Goldman's supervision, the latter devoted substantial periods of time, over the course of two weeks; reviewing in detail her work performance and . 4. instructing heras to the proper and expected work procedures. Finally, in the summer of 1975, until the time of her demotion, Mrs. DePoe was again assigned the services of a summer student. From thatevidence, it is to this Board, self evident and beyond dispute that the grievor was continually being provided with additional assistance and was the subject of close and detailed supervision. As well, there is no dispute that in the assistance she received, from temporary help personnel, summer students; other Applicant Representatives and her superiors, Mrs. DePoe's position was quite unique. Succinctly, none of the other eleven Applicant Representatives in the Branch received such individualized, particularized and detailed attention. Moreover, and' the grievor's claims before this Board notwithstanding, at the time it was proffered ~. it is clear that there was no suggestion'by the grievor that such assistance was either unnecessary or unhelpful. To the contrary, and from her own memorandum of April 16, 1975, it would appear that at the time it was given, Mrs. DePoe wasp appreciative of receiving it. And, most importantly, there is not any doubt in our mind what induced the employer to provide the'grievor with this individualized attention. Simply put, without such additional assistance and in the absence of such close supervision, Mrs. DePoe was either incapable or unwilling to perform all of the work which was usually performed by, and expected of, an Applicant Representative. The latter conclusion, in turn, is supported by a glut of evidence which depicts the grievor as a person who was simply unable to meet the demands of the position. In that regard, we do not intend to review in detail each of t~he incidents and events drawn to our attention by the employer. Rather and highlighting this aspect of the employer's case, we would observe that the evidence of Mrs. Garland, 5. Mrs. Medhurst and Mrs. Zucco attests to the fact that, while she was functioning as part of.the Central team,-her office was ,perpetually in a state of disorganization - if not complete disarray. That was the clear and unequivocal evidence of Mrs. Medhurst and Mrs. Garland. Indeed the, latter indicated that Mrs. DePoe was so far behind in attending to her correspondence in January 1975, that not even a proper review of her files could be undertaken, Moreoxer, the evidence before this Board, which was not challenged by the grievor, was that she had so lost control over the routine clerical duties of her caseload as to preclude OtherApplicant Representatives, supervisors and other members of the team from ever being able to efficiently navigate and function in her office. In this regard Mrs. Zucco's description of the state of the office when she left to work as part of the East team (summarized in Exhibit 15) confirms in appalling detail the extent and consequences of the grievor's inability or unwillingness to impose any system or order upon her caseload. Moreover, and while the evidence of Miss Goldman would suggest that Mrs. DePoe was able to stay on top of her daily correspondence and daily calls when she assumed a smaller caseload in the East team, nevertheless, even in those circumstances, it is clear that Mrs. DePoe fell seriously behind in servicing those files which required additional information before those clients could become houseable. In that regard, Miss Goldman testified that even in April 1975, almost two months after Mrs. DePoe's transfer to the East team, she was late in forwarding almost every file that required letters to be sent out to secure that additional information. Indeed, the fact that on the last day of work Mrs. DePoe gave Miss Goldman some 30 or 40 files which required some additional information before those persons could be housed, three-quarters of which were overdue, would suggest that Mrs. DePoe was never able to 6. successfully master this aspect of the Applicant Representative's job. It is clear from the evidence of her supervisors, Mrs. Garland and Miss Zucco, that it was the grievor's inability to stay on top of her caseload, in a way which ensured that it was amendable to review by other members in her team, that was the primary source of 'concern to the-employer in motivating it to effect the decision that is now under review. Very simply it was that%eficiency which impeded the efficiency of the team concept under which the Applicant Representa- tives worked and ~which could prejudice the prospects of the applicants in being properly housed. However, that is not the'only manifestation .of the grievor's work habits which the employer pointed to in support- ing its evaluation of Mrs. DePoe's inability to competently perform this job. In addition, the employer noted that the fact the grievor would periodically lose her patience on the phone with her clients was a further illustration that she simply was unable to withstand the stress and anxiety that is implicit in the day to day work assumed by an Applicant Representative. In this regard, the evidence adduced by the employer to the effect that throughout her tenure as an Applicant *Representative there were occasions in which Mrs. DePoe treated applicants in a rude and abrasive fashion,stands uncontradicted. Indeed, Miss ~%oldman, who stated that she was obliged to intervene or speak to the grievor on at least four occasions during the period from February until July 1975, contrasted the grievor's record with the other Appli- cant Representatives, by noting that she never had occasion to reproach another of her team for similar behaviour. The evidence of Mrs. Medhurst, Mrs. Garland and even Mrs. Zucco, who testified that even after she switched caseloads with Mrs. DePoe, her former clients would call and complain of the treatment they received from Mrs. DePoe, confirm, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that both relatively and absolutely Mrs. 7 DePoe's telephone manner was, from time to time, seriously deficient. Indeed, the fact that in her former position in the Housing Registry ~she would appear to have.excelled in her telephone manner, in our view can be seen to confirm the employer's assessment that in the more volatile, ~responsible and stressful position of Applicant Repre- sentative, Mrs. DePoe was not equal to the task. There are additional matters that the employer adduced in evidence on which it relied to confirm its judgement as to the grievor's inability to competently discharge the duties and responsibilities of an Applicant Representative. Thus, for at least the first half of her tenure as an Applicant Representative the employer noted that the grievor's absenteeism record, however innocent, detracted from her ability to maintain her caseload. More importantly, the grievor's persistent and continuous inability to report for work at the regular starting time seriously interfered with her capacity to meet the responsibilities of this job which, by its very nature, puts a premium on the Representative being available when the client is demanding attention and service. As well, and confirming their scepticism as to the grievor's.commitment to the job, the employer described various incidents when Mrs. DePoe was away from-work, on union business, without seeking permission from her superiors. Moreover, the fact that one such occasion caused her to be half an hour late for an impor- tant meeting, which was called to discuss and which shortly preceded the reorganizaton of the Tenant P,lacement Bureau along borough lines, suggests to the employer and to this Board, at the very least, a serious inability to properly scale her priorities. In much the same v!aY, the grievor's conduct on April 22, when, we are satisfied, she caused to be disclosed to members of another welfare agency the identity of various vacant units, evinces a serious error of judgement which in turn, necessarily, reflects on her capabilities to fully meet the requirements of this job. 8. 'In our view no purpose would be served and sensibilities abused if we were to itemize, in any further detail, each of the specific incidents which various witnesses of the employer described as reflecting on the grievor's organizational abilities, her telephone manner, her punctuality, etc. In each of these areas we are fully satisfied that Mrs. DePoe's performance was deficient, that it impeded I~ the ability of the Branch to operate as a team, and that it gave good and reasonable cause to the employer to seriously doubt the grievor's ability or willingness to perform in this particular job. Put somewhat differently, there is, in our view, simply no basis for the various theses offered by the grievor as to the root causes of these recorded deficiencies. In that regard, this Board can state, unequivocally, that it is entirely satisfied that Mrs. DePoe's difficulties cannot be attributed to any anti-union animus on the.part of the employer. The evidence of the employer's officials in this regard, and particularly that of Mr. Johnson, leaves us without any doubt that the employer did not single out the grievor because of her union responsibilities. To the contrary, the evidence before this Board is uncontradicted that throughout the entire period in question, indeed even when it interviewed the grievor .for the job, the employer's 'only concern with Mrs. DePoe's responsibilities to her union were that they did not interfere with her ability to discharge her primary obligation to her work. It was in that context that the employer complained that at various times the grievor wou1.d sacrifice her responsibilities to her clients, in the interest of attending to her duti.es as the local union president, without seeking permission. to do so. In assuming that position, we are satisfied the employer was perfectly within its rights. Indeed, if the union were ambitious to have one of its local officers have more available time and discretion to attend to its affairs, it should endeavour to directly 9. negotiate.such matters into their collective agreement.. Nor do we believe that the difficulties which the gcievor experienced can be attributed to the nature or the volume~of work which was asigned to her in particular and to other Applicant _ Representatives generally. Put shortly, we are of the firm opinion that the responsibility for her circumstances doesnot lie in the unreasonableness of the norms and standards expected by the employer of its Applicant Representatives. Against such .an assertion stands the uncontroverted testimony of Mrs.. Garland, Mrs. Medhurst and Miss Goldman. Each of these witnesses testified that none of the other Appli~cant Representatives experienced such problems, even although most would have had less training for the job than the grievor. Indeed it was their evidence that even when the Applicant's Representative system was first introduced in April 1973, all of the Applicant Representatives were functioning more or less efficiently within the first two months of its operation. As well, the fact that Mrs. Zucco, who had only acted as an Applicant Representative for some four months at the time~she took over Mrs. DePoe's Central caseload, was able within the space of three weeks to put that office in reason- able shape, and substanti,ally reduce the size of the caseload by bringing it up to date, confirms that Mrs. DePoe and not the employer's system was the root cause of her difficulties. Indeed the evidence of Miss Goldman and Mrs. Garland as to the experience of Mrs. DePoe's successor in the East team again confirms that, in that position as wells, the difficulties were personal to the grievor and not indigenous to the system. In addition, the grievor's claim that certain observed deficiencies, such as the chaos of her office in January 1975, could be attributed to specific and unique phenomena, such as a period~of illness, simply does -1 . 10. not conform to the record. To the contrary, our review of the evid- enc,e reveals that the deficiencies discussed manifested themselves over the entire period she acted as an Applicant Representative and regardless of which of the three caseloads she undertook to.manage. Indeed; in our view the most striking and telling feature of ,the' grievor's record is the consistency~with which these deficiencies reveal themselves. That is, and as we noted earlier, although she was able to cope with and manage more aspects of her job when she had a smaller caseload in the East team, nevertheless, even there and even with additional assistance, she was never able to give proper'attention to those files which required further information before the applicants could be put in the houseable category. Similarly, and notwithstanding repeated discussions and admonitions from Mrs. Medhurst with regard to her phone manner, Miss Goldman was obliged to intervene on three or four occasions to correct obvious deficiencies in this regard. Indeed even as late as June 1975, Mrs. Garland testified she was obliged to intercede on a particular call. Similarly, and although her punctual- ity was discussed verbally with her as early as June 1974, from the evidence of Miss Goldman this problem persisted until at least four months after she was reassigned to the East end team. It is this fact, viz. the grievor's apparent inability or unwillingness to substantially improve her performance, either after her transfer to the East end team, or indeed after the reorganization in May 1975, and despite the repeated admonitions and ongoing counsel- ling she received with respect to the problems described, which confirms beyond any doubt.the reasonableness of the employer's decision to demote her. That, as we have noted, is the most striking and irreducible part of the grievor's record. If, as she claims, she is in fact able to adequately discharge the duties and responsibilities II. of the position in question, then we are at a loss, against the record of continuous warnings, meetings and ongoing reviews with respect to her work performance, to explain why Mrs. DePoe was never able to have her caseload well organized and up-to-date; to be precisely punctual or to be courteous to a fault when she was ~specifically apprised, as she had been ever since the February transfer, that the employer would be closely monitoring her perfor- mance. In the absence of any such credible explanation, her failure to respond to her employer's criticisms - even with respect to her punctuality or phone manner - until well after she was transferred to Mrs. Goldman's team - in our view, conclusively confirms the reasonableness of the employer's decision. In the result, this Board simply has no basis to challenge or interfere with the employer's decision. Succinctly, the record of the grievor's performance as an Applicant Representative, over a period in excess of a year and with respect to three different caseloads,'in our view provided the employer with adequate and reasonable grounds for its decision to remove her from that position. We would add however, that while such a conclusion necessarily m&t cause this Board to dismiss.this grievance, it does not necessarily ,.'. imply that the grievor is innately incapable of ever competently -~,~~-~i. ,: performing as an Applicant Representative. That latter.issue, is necessarily outside the scope of our present deliberations, However, and against Mrs. Medhurst's description of Mrs. DePoe as an intelli- gent and,bright woman, we would note that it is within the grievor's own competence to demonstrate, by her future performance, that she is equal to the task. , ._ - 12. In the result and for the reasons given, this grievance must be denied. Dated at Toronto this 6th day of September 1977. D. M. Beatty Chairman J. W. Henley Member H. E. Weisbach Member