HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-0089.Forrest.79-05-03Between:
Before:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. Robert S. Forrest
and
(Griever)
The Crown in Right of Ontario
Ministry of Industry & Tourism (Employer)
Mr. George W. Adams Chairman
Mr. George Peckham Member
Mr. Harry Simon Member
For the Grievor:
Mr. Ian Roland
Cameron, Brewin & Scott
Barristers & Solicitors
Guardian of Canada Tower
181 University Ave., Suite 402
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3M7
For the Employer:
Mr. Dennis Brown
'Ministry of the Attorney General
17th Floor, 18 King St. East
Toronto, Ontario
Hearing:
August 28, 1978 and March 16, 1979
Suite 2100, 180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario
‘Gr- e.
-2-
The grievor contests a very severe demotion. He is fifty-
nine years of age; married; and has two children. He continues
to support his wife and one child. He commenced his career with
the government on January 1, 1957 as Grade 3 Clerk. Subsequently,
he spent a number of years as a Personnel Assistant 2 and Personnel
Technician in what were then the Department of Civil Service and Department
of Trade and Development. From April 1, 1972 to June 9, 1975 he
was employed in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism as a Personnel
Administrator 2. His duties included job evaluation, classification,
recruitment, organization and staff relations. However, in 1974 dif-
ferences in his job performance were detected and after a close
monitoring of his performance he was demoted to Public Relations
Officer 2, one grade lower than his previous position. This
job was out of the personnel area and included such duties as the
managing of the mailroom operation, organizing and carrying out com-
munity service programs, and revising the administration manual. Unfortunately,
he continued to perform at a very ineffective level in undertaking a
series of projects assigned to him until April 1978 when his duties
at that time were reclassified to a Clerk 3, General. Over the
previous three or four years his substandard performance was continually
reviewed with him. There can be no doubt that his performance was
completely unsatisfactory; that he was fully aware of the situation;
and that his duties in April, 1978 were those meriting no more than
the Clerk 3, General.
The grievor did not contest the details of his employment history,
but testified that his problems were caused by his transfer out
-3-
of personnel work and a resultant frustration and/or depression,
He testified that he had been convinced that his skills in personnel
work were not being recognized and that this led to disinterest in
the work he was assigned. However, he testified that recently he
has come to accept his situation and a letter dated March 15, 1979
commending him on the satisfactory completion of a recent assignment
was tendered as evidence of this "break through." He'further testi-
fied that, since his demotion, his net pay is about one half what
it was as a public relations officer, The clerk 3 classification
is some Six CTassificatiOn~Tevels below the public'relations officer classi-
fication and the remuneration for the job obviously reflects this
substantial distance.
On behalf of the grievor it was submitted that the demotion was
disciplinary and that, in the circumstances, it was too severe.
Alternately, it was submitted that Article 5.7 of the collective agree-
ment prevented a demotion having remuneration consequences in excess
of !'the rate closest to but less than the rate he was receiving at the
time of the demotion." The employer argued that the demotion merely
reflected the only work the grievor was capable of performing.
Having regard to the griever's seniority, his age and family
commitment, and his recent improvement of performance, we are of the
opinion that the grievor should be offered the opportunity to work
back up to his classification of public relations officer 2.
With the recent improvement in the grievor's performance and
in light of the testimony of several supervisors to the effect that
the grievor has the ability to perform at a higher level of performance,
-4-
we view the demotion as disciplinary. Indeed,the penalty of demotion
appears to have had a beneficial impact on Mr. Forrest's attitude
and related job performance. In the circumstance,,we direct a review
of the grievor's performance May 1, 1979. If it has remained at the
level reflected in Mr. Marshal's letter of March 15, 1978, the grievor
is to be assigned within two classifications of his previous position
as a public relations officer. After six months of satisfactory
performance in that classification, he is to be returned to the
public relations officer classification. In the circumstances,
grievor is not entitled to any compensation.
Dated at Toronto this 3rd day of May, 1979.
George W. Adams Chairman
I concur
George Peckham Member
I concur
Harry Simon Member