Loading...
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