HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-0065.Chatrand.77-03-28CROWN EHPCOYEES .416 964-6426
GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT
EOARO
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Between:
Before:
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. P. J.~Chartrand
And
Ministry of Natural Resources
D. M. Beatty - Chairman
G. Peckham - Member,
Cl. Anderson - Member
Suite 405
77 BZoor Street Vest
TO.?ONTO, Ontario
M5S lM2
(Grievor)
(Employer)
For the Grievor:
Mr. Maurice N. Gag&, Ontario Public
Service Employees Union
For the Employer:
J. A. Temple, Supervisor, Compensation Section
Ministry of Natural Resources
Hearing:
March 21, 1977
Suite 405, 77 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario
-
2.
In the grievance he filed with this Board Mr. P. J.
Chartrand grieved the propriety of a disciplinary penalty
imposed upon him as a result of an accident in which he was
involved, while driving a Ministry vehicle, on February 6,
1976. Specifically, it was the grievor's complaint that a
one day fine which was imposed upon him as a result of the
accident was unjust and unreasonable in the circumstances.
After receiving an agreed statement of facts as to
the circumstances giving rise to this grievance and after
listening to the submission of the parties with respect to
the appropriateness of the penalty imposed, this Board
determined that the issue before us was one which fell
within the principles of Re Andtwws 37/76 and permitted us
to issue an oral decision. So guided and pursuant to the
principles outlined in ~Rs AntZe 66/76 this Board, for the
reasons delineated in more detail at the hearing, came to
the conclusion that it was not an appropriate case in which
we would exercise our discretionary powers to amend or
modify the penalty imposed. In the result and for the reasons
given, Mr. Chartrand's grievance was denied.
Dated at Toronto this 28th day of March 1977
I concl4r
G. Peckham
Member
See attached addendum
a Anderson Member
ADDENDUM
The disciplinary penalty imposed on Mr. Chartrand
was "a one (1) day fine" under Section 31 subsection (3d) of
the Regulations of the Public Service Act. The Board was
asked by the Union to find that this penalty was excessive
in the circumstances. The evidence and argument presented to
us did not support that conclusion,
The question of the propriety of the penalty was
not before us, nor was it argued by either party. In this
respect I have two brief comments:
(1) Although we have upheld the Employer's action, one
should not necessarily imply a determination that Section 31(3)
of the aforementioned Regulations is consistent with the
Collective Agreement. This issue remains open for some
future Board to determine.
(2) There was much evidence to support a conclusion
that the grievor was guilty of carelessness warranting
disciplinary action. I do however, shave some difficulty in
characterizing the events of February 6, 1976 as constituting
"misuse of Government Property" on the part of Mr. Chartrand.
(Ori&mZ addendum signed: I
Dan Anderson