HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-0012.Temple.76-05-0712/ 76
CROWN EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT
kInAll
416/965/1410 0ueelTs Park
Toron~a. Onreric
MIA 125
---..-
I
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: Miss Susan Temple
And
(The Grievor)
The Ministry of Health
(Queen St. Mental Health Centre) (The Employer)
Before: D. M. Beatty - Chairman
'Mr. E. J:Orsini - Member
Mr. H. E. Weisbach - Member
For the Grievor
Mr. George Richards - Representative
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer
Mr. I. Freedman - Counsel
Ministry of Health
Hearings~
Westbury Hotel, Toronto, Ontario, March 11, 1976
Westbury Hotel, Toronto, Ontario, April 9, 1976
& 2.
In the grievance brought before this Board, Miss Susan
Temple asserts that she was improperly terminated on February 9,
1976. More specifically, Miss Temple, who from February 10,
1975 until February 9, 1976 was employed on the probationary staff
as a Registered Nurse at the Ministry's Queen Street Mental Health
Centre, claims that the employer acted unreasonably and improperly
. _ in failing to appoint her to the permanent staff at the conclusion
of her probationary period. At the outset of the hearing the
parties advised the Board that in light of our earlier ruling on
Re: Eriksen U/75 they were ~agreed that we were properly constituted
and had jurisdiction to hear Miss Temple's grievance. Indeed and
notwithstanding that this Board listened to the evidence of the
parties over the course of two days, there is in fact little, if
any, disagreement between them with respect to the material
circumstances surrounding this grievance. Rather it is the con-
elusions that are properly to be drawn from those circumstances that
is the subject in issue between the parties.
Very simply,and as noted above,it was agreed by the
parties that Miss Temple commenced her employment with the Ministry
at its Queen Street facility on February 10, 1975 as a probationary
employee. Further,there was no dispute between them that except
for the matter of her attendance Miss Temple demonstrated herself
to be a competent and able employee. Indeed it was only because
of what the employer perceived to be her inadequate and unacceptable
attendance record that she was not placed on the hospital's
permanent staff. Moreover the parties were agreed that on its face
3.
the qrievor's record of attendance was palpably deficient. Thus on
the figures submitted by the employer which were not seriously
challenged by the grievor, Miss Temple was absent on twenty separate
occasions involving a loss of some 46 days of work. As computed
by the employer, such loss represented some 17.6% of her available
working days during the course of the year. Further, of these twenty
instances of absence the employer's evidence reveals that Miss Temple
was away from work on two occasions on compassionate leave involving
a loss of two days; on three occasions on Workmen's Compensation
leave involving a loss of twenty-three days, and on fifteen oc-
casions for reasons of sickness and illness involving a loss of
twenty-one days. In the result and perhaps not surprisingly it was
not seriously challenged that on the employer's records Viss Temple's
rate and quantum of absenteeism far exceeded that of any other nurse
in the hospital.
In addition to this statistical evidence, the union
adduced certain additional evidence with respect to the underlying
causes which precipitated the grievor's absences. Again with respect
to this evidence, there was in fact substantial agreement between the
parties. Thus there was no dispute between them that Miss Temple's
absences were all for legitimate and blameless reasons. Indeed at
no time did the employer seriously question the bona fides of any
of Kiss Temple's various absences. Thus and with respect to each
of the Workmen's Compensation claims which resulted in the loss of
twenty-three working days the parties were agreed that on each
occasion Niss Temple was attacked by a patient, did suffer some
injury, and as a consequence, was required to absent herself from
her work. Similarly and with respect to each of the illnesses which
,ii 4.
precipitated the other twenty-one days of absence, there was no
evidence before this Board which would suggest that the orievor
did not in ,fact suffer the illnesses and infirmities that she
claimed caused her to be absent from work. Indeed on the evidence
before this @oard, there can he no dispute as to the particular
causes nor as to the extent of the illnesses and injuries which
precipitated each of Piss Temple's various absences. That is,
while the employer queried whether for a particular compensation
claim the qrievor suffered as seriously as the incident might
otherwise have sugqerted, there was no evidence proferred to this
Board which in any way challenged or contradicted her testimony
as to the origin of her various illnesses and ailments, nor as to
the severity o,f their effect. Indeed, as discussed below, what
other evidence was presented to this Board on these matters tended
to corroborate the griever's testimony. That is and with reference
to the three compensation claims which resulted in Miss Temple
being absent from work, this Board has simply no evidence before it
to challenqe the grievor's description of the extent of the in.juries
which were occasioned by each of the attacks to which she was
sub.jected. Rather her evidence as to the physical consequences of
those attacks stands uncontradicted. In this regard she testified
that on each occasion she was under the care of and did in fact
consult her personal physician during the entire period of each of
these absences. Moreover on each of these occasions she claimed
that the period she was required to be absent from work was in fact
prescribed by her personal physician and in none of these instances
was her claim even challenqed either by the employer or the Workmen's
Compensation authorities.
!I
Similarly and with respect to the fifteen occasions on
which the qrievbr was absent owing to illness, her evidence as to
the cause of her infirmities stands uncontradicted. With respect
to these absences essential1.y her evidence was that during the
period from January 1975 until September of that year she was
continually experiencing symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea
which ailments were the primary and operative cause of virtually
all of her absences throughout that period. Indeed it was her
evidence and her absenteeism record confirms that all of her
absences during this period, with the exception of those occurring
on Varch 17 and June 23 were associated with and could be attributed
to such abdominal and gastric ailments. Moreover, according to the
9rievor and again there was not.a scintilla of evidence to the
contrary, throughout this period she had consulted her physician and
was undergoing a series of tests and examinations in order to deterl-ine
the precise source of these difficulties. However, she testified, and
a medical report submitted by her physician confirms, that all of these
tests were negative until September of that year when she was referred
to a gynecologist who suggested that the source of her difficulties
most probably could be ascribed to the ingestion of oral contraceptives
which she had begun to use shortly before she had commenced her
employment with this Ministry. Although, as the employer contended
Miss Temple's physician at no time specifically certified that thn
oral contraceptives were in fact the cause of her difficulties, the
absenteeism record itself does provide some corroboration for what
otherwise still must be regarded as her uncontradicted evidence.
From that record it is clear that none of the absences that occurred
6.
after September, when she was no longer taking the oral contraceptives,
were caused by illnesses which were associated with the symptoms
described earlier. Rather with the exception of one absence caused
by a cold and one precipitated by an accident, all of the remaining
"absences due to sickness" relate to severe menstrual cramps, and
dysmenorrhea. In turn,according to Miss Temple's evidence, which in
this instance is corroborated not only by her absenteeism record ~_
but, on the final occasion by a medical certificate,
virtually all of these difficulties can be ascribed to the insertion
in September of that year of an I.U.D. contraceptive device. Very
simply, it was her evidence that all of her absences during the
period from October 1975 until January 1976, with the exceptions
noted above, could be attributed to the difficulties she experienced
after she was taken off oral contraceptives and was prescribed the 1.il.n.
Indeed so difficult was her experience with this device that ultimately
on January 17, 1976 the date of her final absence, she was admitted to
hospital to have it removed.
It is against that evidence that Miss Temple claims that
with two or three isolated exceptions (the bona fides of which the
employer did not challenge) all of her absences can now be attributed
to isolated instances of patient attack, the ingestion of oral
contraceptives and the insertion of the I.U.D. Apart from these
particular conditions, the latter two of which at least have now been
determinatively resolved, Miss Temple is of the view that she was,and
perhaps more critically presently is, otherwise in good health and
,
should be capable of regular attendance in the future. That as well
is the opinion of her personal physician.
AS we have already noted the employer, for its part, did
not adduce any evidence of a particular nature to contradict what is
admittedly an ex post facto diagnosis of the griever's ailments.
Indeed and notwithstanding a careful and probing cross-examination
of the grievor, no testimony was elicited from her which in any way
undermined her testimony in chief. In fact, much, if not all of the
employer's argument at the conclusion of the hearing was premised on
the assumption that the grievor's various afflictions and ailments
could be ascribed to the causes she described. However and in sharp
contrast with the grievor's conclusions, the employer argued that
Wiss Temple's experiences during the course of her probationary year
only serve to confirm the reasonableness of the employer's decision
that she is not a person who merits bein? placed on its permanent
staff. Pointing to the unique or at least exaggerated responses to
both the oral contraceptive and the I.U.D., to her proclivity to
being attacked by patients in the hospital, to the prolonged duration
of her absences while on compensation, to the fact she suffers
certain allerqies and may not be administered certain drugs, and to
the fact that on one occasion prior to her employment with the
Elinistry she was involved in an accident as a result of which she
broke some toes, the employer claimed Miss Temple could only be
characterized in terms analogous to the person known to the common
law of negligence as the thin skull victim'and/or to a person who
appears to be fated to suffer from unique infirmities or react in
c
exaggerated fashion to what otherwise would be considered common and
minor ailments. Put at its simplest, it was the employer's position
that characterizing the griever in such a fashion it necessarily
follows that it must be entitled to protect itself from the losses
that would be'occasioned by placing such a person eon its permanent
staff.
. . In assessing the merits of Miss Temple's grievance, it is,
we believe, important for, this Board to reaffirm the nature of the
determination that we perceive we are required to make in assessing
an employer's decision to terminate a probationary employee. We have
already noted in our earlier award, Re Eriksen U/75, that the grounds
on which a probationer may be terminated from his or her employment
are broader than those which would support the dismissal of a
permanent employee. Further, and for reasons more fully described
in that award, this Board is of the view that its review of a
probationer's grievance against his or her termination can not and
will not be of the nature of a fresh appeal of the employer's decision.
However, as noted in that award, it does not follow from such an
assertion that an employer has a completely unfettered right to terminate
the services of a probationer at will. Rather we believe that it
follows from the very nature of the probationary period not only that
the employer is entitled to some latitude in exercising its discretion
as to which employees it will place on its permanent staff but also
that a probationer who satisfies those standards and expectations
reasonably promulgated by the employer is entitled to expect that he
or she will not be terminated at the conclusion of their probationary
period. Thus and to put the matter somewhat differently, in grievances
of this nature it is the primary, if not the exclusive function of this
fioard to ensure that standards against which the probationary
employee's performance is measured, together with the application
of those standards to the employee concerned are fair and reasonable
in all of the circumstances.
Applying those standards to the instant case, there can
be little dispute that a standard of regular attendance is a reason-
able and proper one against which an employer may assess the
suitability of a probationary employee for placement on the permanent
staff. As the employer quite properly argued the concept of regular
attendance has in our society virtually assumed the proportions of a
cultural assumption. However, and with respect to the application
of such a standard to the circumstances of Miss Temple's experience,
much more difficult and complex considerations arise. That is while
acknowledging the employer's right to expect regular attendance
from its prospective employees, it may not follow in every case that
an employee who has been absent from work for a considerable period
during their probationary or any other year is incapable of regular
attendance in future years. Very simply in certain instances the
absenteeism record of an employee in any one year may not accurately
reflect that employee's past attendance record, nor his or her
capability for regular attendance in the future.
It is in essence a realization of that fact, which has
induced arbitrators in determining whether an employer may properly
terminate the services of an employee who for reasons of incapacity
or illness can not for any given period maintain a regular nattern
of attendance, to examine both the past absenteeism record of the
grievor and as well the capability of that employee to report for
work on a regular basis in the future. More specifically, by
focusing upon such criteria as the past employment record of the
10.
qrievor, the nature of and the causes for the absences in the past,
the persistence of the attendance problem, the effect of earlier
attempts by the employer to rectify it, the frequency and duration
of the absences as well as any medical prognostication as to the
orievor's ability to report on a regular basis in the future, the
arbitrator attempts to make some reasoned judgement as to the griever's
ability to fully discharge his or her employment obligations in the
future. In short, it is only after such an examination has been made
that one may properly draw any conclusions as to an emplo,yee's ability
to meet the standard of regular attendance from the attendance
experience of an employee during any given year.
Applying such an analyses to the circumstances of Fiss
Temple's grievance we do not believe that her attendance record during
the course of her probationary year reasonably supports the conclusion
that she will experience similar difficulties in the future. To the
contrary we believe that all of the evidence suggests exactly the
opposite. In the first place and most critically, in our view
all of the evidence before this Board with respect to the prognosis
for the griever's future attendance supports the conclusion that she
will in fact be able to report for work on a consistent and regular
basis. Indeed only if one ignored her own evidence with respect to
the causes of her past absences, could one conclude that the problems
which manifested themselves during her probationary year will likely
recur in the future. That is, if one accepts, as we do, her evidence
that the source of virtually all of her ailments during her probationary
year were associated with the use of various contraceptive devices,
one simply can not assume that Isiss Temple is a person who is fated
to suffer or inflicts upon herself such medical disabilities. Moreover
.._ ..-. I._
.
Ii.
to perceive Miss Temple as being some one akin to the "thin skull
victinV or some other related notional character requires one to
ignore her evidence that she has never experienced any difficulties
in her previous employment or while at school in meeting the
cultural norm of regular attendance. In addition to advert to the
fact that Miss Temple is not able to receive certain medications
as further support for the conclusion that she is a person who is ,
fated to suffer peculiar ailments is to deny the fact that no
absence has ever been ascribed to such a condition. In addition to
suggest that because Miss Temple was required to be absent on three
separate occasions after being subjected to an attack by a patient
that she is particularly fraqile and vulnerable to such abuse is
also to ignore the fact that on three other occasions when she was
attacked by a patient she was not required to take any time off
work. Further, and although it is true that her allergic condition
did in fact cause her to be absent on one occasion when she omitted
to take her medicine, we believe that such an occurrence can not in
the experience of her probationary year, be said to be a likely cause
of future absenteeism on anything but an isolated and infrequent
basis.
However perhaps the most telling evidence against the
employer's characterization of the grievor as a person who wills
upon herself or who is fated to suffer abnormal ailments or extreme
and exaggerated reactions to common conditions is her record of
attendance during the last two months of her employment. During
that period the employer's records reveal that Miss Temple was
absent on five separate occasions. For one of these the employer
granted her compassionate leave. A second absence was associated
12.
with the third Workmen's Compensation claim. A third absence was
spent in the hospital and recovery from the removal of the I.U.D.
The remaining two absences, involvinq the loss of one day of work
on each occasion were, according to her evidence and the hospital
records were attributable to the difficulties she was experiencing
with the I.U.D. device. Thus, over the last two months of her
employment Miss Temple did not suffer from a single ailment the
effect and source of which can not now be said to have been completely
spent. In short there was, over the last two months of her employment
not a single instance of absenteeism the cause of which could now be
expected to precipitate future absences on the grievor's part. Put
somewhat differently, Miss Temple's experience in the final two
months of her employment does confirm her physician's statement
of January 26, 1976 that Miss Temple is in fact presently in good
health.
In the result although the grievor's attendance record
during the course of her probationary year was a poor one, we are
satisfied that the causes for those absences have been identified,
rectified and wili not likely cause attendance problems in the
future. We are firmly of the view and there is simply no evidence
before us to the contrary, that the problems she experienced in
this regard during the course of her probationary year were not ones
she had previously experienced either in her previous employment or
during the time when she was training for her chosen vocation. On the
basis of that evidence and her own physician's statement that she is
presently in good health we believe makes unreasonable any proqno:i:,
or conclusion that she will be incapable or regular attendance in the:
future. .Vesy~.,simpTy,, and against that evidence, the bald suggestion
that bliss Temple may possibly experience other medical infirmities in
13.
the future simply cannot be accepted as sufficient prooof of her
medical unfitness or of her inability to meet a standard of
reaular attendance. Re INTERNATXONAL NICKEL CO. OF CANADA LTD.
AND UNITED STEELWORKERS (1974) ? L.A.C. (2d) 196 (RAYNER)
That the employer's conclusion as to t!iss Temple's
ability to report for work on a regular basis is unreasonable may
also be confirmed by examining the methods it utilized in attemptinq
to rectify her attendance problem. In examining the employer's
efforts in this regard we are not suqgestinq that an employer must
specifically warn every probationary employee that failure to meet
certain "cultural" norms such as regular attendance, will result
in his or her being terminated at the end of the probationary
term. To the contrary,as the employer properly suggested, given
the very nature and purpose of the probationary period, probationers
should be well aware of the potential consequences when they are
advised, that their attendance record is inadeaute and unacceptable.
Thus and standing alone, the fact the employer on three separate
occasions drew Miss Temple's attention to her attendance problems
would we believe be sufficient to alert her of her employer's
expectations that a substantial improvement in her attendance would
be required.
However,in the circumstances of this case the employer's
response to the grievor's attendance problems were not limited to
such direct admonitions. Rather,according to the qrievor, on the
first of two occasions, when her attendance record was raised as
part of her on-going evaluation, she specifically apprised her
14.
supervisors of the nature of her problems, and of the fact that
she was undergoing various tests and examinations to determine the
cause of her difficulties. It was her evidence that when she apprised
her supervisors of these facts the latter advised her that there was
no problem in this regard. Similarly at the time of her sixth
month evaluation, which for various reasons was not conducted until
._ . November,it was her evidence, which again stands uncontradicted,that
she advised her supervisor that the problems she had experienced
from February until September had now been diagnosed as being caused
by the ingestion of oral contraceptives and that as a result of her
going off that medication no further illness of the nature had in
fact manifested itself since that date nor was any similar ailment
expected to recur in the future, Miss Temple advised the Doard
that in fact when she so informed her supervisor the latter again
indicated that she accepted the orievor's explanation. Indeed
according to Miss Temple when she offered to bring in medical
certificates to substantiate her claims, her supervisor advised
her that it would not be necessary in that she understood and believed
the griever's explanation.
Similarly when Miss Temple was confronted with her nine
month evaluation shortly after her return from having the I.U.D.
removed in which her attendance record was again reviewed she aqain
attempted to explain that the nature of her more recent ailments
were directly related to the insertion of the 1.U.D and that no)!
having had that device removed no similar difficulties were expected
to recur. Again on this occasion Miss Temple offered and in fact
did secure a medical opinion to substantiate her description of
15.
her difficulties with the I.U.D. However, on this occasion according
to Miss Temple, when she presented her physician's statement to her
supervisor, the latter merely commented that"time off was time off"
regardless of the reason and that it was her judgement that Miss
Temple would be a poor risk. Moreover when Miss Temple pressed
her supervisor to call her doctor to substantiate her explanation
the supervisor simply advised her that such an inquiry would be of
no further assistance. Indeed when Miss Temple sought out the
hospital's Director of Personnel for a review of her plight the
latter advised her that the decision was out of his hands and
referred her back to her nursing superiors. In the result, these
supervisors still being unsatisfied with the certification presented
by the grievor determined not to recommend her for appointment to
the permanent staff.
We have reviewed the grievor's evidence with regard to
the employer's handling of the grievor's attendance problems in some
detail because it is axiomatic to this Board that if the methods
utilized by the employer to arrive at a particular conclusion, are
themselves arbitrary and unreasonable, necessarily that will affect
the quality and propriety of the decision that was effected pursuant
to such methods. In the circumstances of this case, although we have
already noted our determination that the employer's decision as to
the grievor's present state of health and its prognosis for her
being able to report for work on a regular basis in the future was
on the merits unreasonable, in the final analysis it strikes this
Board that it was methods utilized by the employer in arriving at
their decision which were seriously wanting and which ultimately
1 r. .
affected the reasonableness of its decision. That is when confronted
with the grievor's explanation of her past difficulties and the
assertion that these ailments would not manifest themselves in the
future, surely it was encumbent on her immediate supervisor or on
the Director of Personnel to make the necessary inquiries that
their decision to accept or reject her explanation would be
made on the basis of informed opinion rather than on some arbitrary .~
slogan that time off was time off. Surely if the supervisor or
anyone who relied on the supervisor's recommendation had doubts as
to the veracity of the explanation proferred by Miss Temple, it was
encumbent on them, either to make such further inquiries as were
required to substantiate or confirm her assertions or to specifically
apprise Miss Temple of the deficiencies it perceived in her cer-
tification so that she would have an opportunity to provide the
necessary information to alleviate their doubts. me I?JTER?IATIOIZAL' .
NICKEL CO. OF CANADA LTD. AND UNITED STEELMOR~RS, LOCAL 6500
.
(1974) 6 L.A.C. (2d) 443 (JOHNSTONJ Re FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CC.
OF CANADA LTD. AND UNITED RUBBER WORKERS, LOCAL 113 (1973 3 L.A.C. f2d)
13 (%EATHERILLJ, Re lIP?ITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA AND IEITERNATIOIs'AL
NICKEL CO. OF CANADA LTD. (1969) 20 L.A.C. 178 (H. D. BPOW?l)
Indeed it strikes this Board that such a methodology could profitably
have been employed as early as May when the grievor underwent her first
evaluation. If, as its present posture would indicate, the employer
was even then not satisfied with Miss Temple's explanation of her
absences inquiries should have been made or instructions given to
Miss Temple to provide whatever documentary information the employer
required. Very simply and in the result by failing to institute
any such procedures and by simply rejecting the prievor's explanations
17
withcut reason in our view necessarily impugns the reasonableness
of the decision ultimately effected by the employer.
In reachinq the conclusion that the methods utilized
by the employer in reaching a decision as to the griever's prospects
for future attendance were unreasonable, we do not wish to leave the
impression that the errors were wholly one-sided. Although it is .~,
true that until her evaluation in January 1976 Piss Temple could
reasonably have assumed, from her supervisor's comments, that the
employer had understood and had accepted her explanation for her
absences, it is also clear that had Miss Temple provided the employer
with clear and definitive medical certificates throuqhout the period
she was experiencing her difficulties the employer's ultimate decision
as to her suitability might well have been otherwise. Indeed even if
she had presented such a document as late as her final evaluation
events mipht well have transpired in a very different fashion. Put
somewhat differently had Miss Temple assumed the initiative and
provided the employer with a full and definitive certificate, there
would have been no~further need for the employer to make any further
inquiries as to the source of past difficulties and as to the present
state of her health. Indeed given the difficulties that this Board
and others in the private sector have experienced in the assessment
of medical documents submitted to them, it would be wise for either
the union, or the employer,~ or both of them jointly, to prepare a
common form which would clearly spell out the physician's diaqnosis
of the employee's infirmity, the nature of the treatment and medication
prescribed and as weli the prognosis for future recovery. me STEEL co.
OF CAh'ALX LTD. AND UNITED STEELWORKERS, LOCAL 1005 (1975) 8 L.A.C. (Zd)
20s (LWATTY). Had such a document been available and utilized by Miss
Ii’.
I’~ s
i> 'iemole, clearly settino out all of the information described above
we doubt that the assistance of this D,oard would have been reouired
to resolve this matter.
Finally in reaching the conclusion that the employer's
decision with respect to the proonosis for Piss Temple's future
attendance was unreasonable this Roard is not unmindful that our
decision itself is in the nature of a prognosis which thouoh we
believe to be the only reasonable and proper one on the evidence
presently before us, may itself ultimately prove to be ontimistic
and unfounded. In such circumstances we believe that the employer's
interests in ensuring that its staff is able to meet a reasonable
standard of attendance is meritorious of our consideration and
V!ere it otherwise and should the grievor prove incapable of meeting
such a standard of attendance the employer Gould be obliged to assume
the real and significant costs that would obviously be associated with
the employment of a person who could not adeouately discharge their
employment obligations. Very simply in such circumstances not only
would the employer he saddled with actual expenditures and losses.
in the form of health benefits, temporary loss of services and perhaps
additional overtime payments but as well it would be denied the expected
fruits of their bargain viz, the employee's services. In such circum-
stances, and recognizing the limitations of the adjudication process
to precisely and accurately forecast the future health of employees
who come before it we believe that in reinstating Miss Temple to her
employment, we should do so only on certain terms. Specifically, and
in following a procedure well known to the private sector, we would
condition the arievor's reinstatement on her being able to satisfy a
level of attendance that is not significantly below that of the hospital's
average for a period of one year from the date she actually resumes her
. _
emrlovment. Pc ATLAS STEELS CO. AND CANAD~TAN .~Tl:~I,WOi~K~RS ' ,!"!Ii);! , ~--.
,I?!.AS PF'1.V~ (1975) 8 L.A.C. j2d) 350 (WEA?flEPII,L): Re HASES-"Ail/
LTD. A':1 i?:I?'ED AUi'YlMODILE KOPKERS, LOCAL 374 (1973) 3 L.A.C. (2d)
371 (r:rAr!!rPILL.) Pe UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKFRS, LOCAL 45t, AI:D W,SSi:)‘-
FERGUSO!! 1I:DLFTPIE.C LTD. (1972) 24 L.A.C. 344 (SHIME; Re UliIT’fP
A lI?‘OMO.?IL.? k?Ol’E:ERS , LOCAL 397, AF!D BARBER-ELLIS OF CAA'.qDA LTD. (19fiRl
19 L.A.C. 163 (SCHIFf). In so conditioninn the grievor's reinstatement
we believe we have adequate1.v protected the interests of the employer
in the event that the evidence and our judnement of her present health
proves faulty. In the result we would order the orievor to be re-
instated immediately, effective February IO, lg76 with full service
credits and compensation to which she is entitled less an,v monies
she would not otherwise have received but for her termination. Should
the parties be unable to resolve the amount of compensation due and
owing to the arievor, we shall remain seized of this issue for thirty
davs followina the release of our award.
Dated at Toronto this 7th day of May 1976.
0. M. Beatty
Chairman
E. J. Drsini
Member
H. E. Weisbach
Member