HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0195.Narain.81-10-23IN THE MATTER OP AX ARBITRATION
Undel- The
CROWN SiYPLOYEES COLLECTIVC SARGAINING AC?
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT B0AF.D
3etween: !“I r . De0 Narain Griever
- And -
The Crown in Right of 3rtario
(Xinistry of H3usinq) Employer
Before: Prof. R. J. Roberts Vice Chairman
MT. G. K. Griffin Member
Ms. M. M. Perrin Member
For the Griever: - Mr. I. Roland, Counsel
cameron, 3rewi.n & Scott
For the Employer: Mr. A. P. Tarasuk, Cour~sel
Central Ontario industrial Relations institllte
Hearings : June 17, 19ai and 0cGber 1, 1981
? 1
r,
This is a discharqe case. It involves an unusual fdct
situation surrounding the behaviour of the qrievor, Nr. De0
Xarain, at his workplace. This unusual behaviour involved
the tendency of the q rievor to Lapse into a trance-like state
at !lis desk, and the impact of this tendency upon his outout,
as well as upon his co-workers and supervisors. At the hear-
inq the Union submitted evidence and arqument on behalf of
the qrievor that the imposition of the discipline of discharqe
was too harsh, particularly in the light of the qrievor's
evidence that his performance was improving.
The Cmployer, The Crown in Right of Ontario, ?linistry
of Housinq, submitted that on the evidence the qrievor was
not improving, and that having exhausted its attempts to
reform the griever into a productive worker, the Employer
had just cause to impose the discipline discharge. This was
particularly so, in the submission of the Employer, Ln the
light of the determination by the qrievor's personal physician
and psychological and medical doctors of the Empioyer that
there was no medical or psychological basis for the qrievor's
tendency to lapse into a trance.
Upon due consideration of the evidence and the argument
of the parties, we unanimously conclude that there was just
cause to discharqe the qrievor. Accordingly, the qrievance
is denied.
c
5
- 3 -
The facts as we find them are as follows. On Febr'Jary
26, 1980, the grievor was transferred from the Finance aranch
of the Ministry of Xousing to the Financial Systems Co-ordination
branch of the same !4inistry. Apparently, this transfe: was
due to a reorganization within the i4inistry and had nothing
to do with the prior performance of the grievor in his job
as a Clerk II Filing.
Prior to the transfer, however, there had been placed
in the grievor's personnel file a memorandum to the grievor
from fir. Victor Pamdeo, his Supervisor, noting certain
difficulties with the grievor's war!< habits. This memoranda,,
read as follows:
Subject: Job Performance Problems
This !gill confirm our discussions *of January 11, 1980
and January 15, 1980 regarding the above noted subject.
Problems discussed were as follows:
(a) Deterioration of quality of work: - slow response to phone calls and direct personal
queries from both within and outside the Section
- unsatisfactory performance 'dith progressive
deterioration in quality and quantity of assigned duties.
(b) Personal habits obnoxious to other employees.
(cl General job attitude:
- uncommunicative to others - slow response to matter requiring urgent attention.
If there is no improvement in these areas, we may have to consider disciplinary action against you.
.tiong other things, this memorandum noted that the griever was
becoming unccmmunicative, slow to respond, and progressively
J
5
-4-
worse in the quality and quantity of his work.
These problems worsened in the griever's new work
environment. %ere, the griever was designated the Filing
Clerk. His duties, according to the testimony of his
new Supervisor, Xr. G.3. .Xani, were to prepare mailing
envelopes and courier service waybills: as,sist other
cler!cs in the area in receiving outgut reports and helping
them.sort the reports and prepare them for dispatch: and
to deliver outgut reports to various offices ia the two
buildings nearby his worlqlace. Xlrnost directly after the
arrival of the grievor, Hr. :lani began to receive complaints
from the grievor's co-workers and his >!anager, Systems
Co-ordination, that the output of the grievor was very
slow.~ According to Yr. Xani, the output of the grievor
was less than l/4 of what would ordinarily have been~ expected.
It was not that the work was particularly difficult.
For example, the preparation of envelopes and ccurier waybills,
which constituted about 2/3's of the job merely involved the
placement of computerized address stickers and clear plastic
Jouches upon the faces of the envelopes and the entering
of the names of addressees, along with standardized :qeight
figures, on the courier service waybills. These functions
were made .even simpler in August, 1980, when computer-address-
ed waybills Tdere introduced. This left to the griever only
responsibility fora.ffixing to the envelopes the plastic
3ouches and adkess stic!cers.
i
- 5 -
Xoreover , it seems that the grievor seldom
performed any of the other functions that were assigned
to his Fosition, suc.S as.assisting co-workers in sorting
output reports or delivering envelopes to nearby offices
at the two buildings which constituted the Xeadquarters
Of the !4inistry of Housing.
:4r . Mani testified that he began to observe the
perfomance of the grievor in response to these complaints
and in view of the unexplainedly low output from the
griever. At the hearing, i4r. Mani demonstrated for
the 3oard what he had seen. in this demonstration, he
showed the Board how the grievor wouldaffix an address
sticker and clear plastic pouch to an envelope in a
slow-motion trance-like state. In the estimation of
the Board, the process deaonstrated by :~Ir. ?lani took
from 4 to 5 times longer then it would have if it had
been perfomed at a normal rate of speed.
This was not the only problem that Nr. Nani testified
he observed with respect to the grievor. Mr. ?Iani stated
th~at the griever's fellow workers soon did hot see any
point in asking t:he grievor to assist them. This was
not only because the grievor was slow in performing his
envelope preparation function but also because the grievor
would not respond to then. Tlhese co-wor!kers hecane
frustrated iiitht5is lack of r2sFonse because tiiey were
never sure iihet+.er t:Se griever uaderstsod. :*!r . ? an1
- 6 -
testified that he personally observed the grievor showing
ho response to requests from co-workers to deliver reports,
etc. Further, the grievor was hot punctual. On some days
he would be from l/2 hour to 48 minutes late. On other days
he would not show up at all. Finally, Mr. ,clani testified,
the grievor was'observed sleeping on the job and reading
newspapers, etc., at times when he should have been working.
On April 21, 1980, Nr. Ken Franey, who was acting at the
time as Xr. I4ani's Supervisor of Systems Co-ordination,
sent a memorandum to the grievor in an effort to advise
him of the deficiencies in his behaviour and get him to
change his z?ays. This memorandum read, in pertinent aart,
as follows:
Ze: iiORK HABITS X‘ID hOtiitS OF WORK
This will confirm our discussion of Qril 21, 1980:
1. Your Sours of work are from 8:45 a.m. to 3:oo p.m.
2. Your lunch hours are from 12:00 5.". to
l:oo 2.m. with onlv one hour for lunch.
3. There must be no reading of newspapers,
magazines, etc. or sleeping during your
working hours. This practice must cease immediately.
If you continue to ignore the rules, you will receive
anadditional:.larning letter srhich will be ;Ilaced in
your eln.ploy;nent file.
The Trlevor was warnec . that if he did not improve further
warning letters xould follows.
i
- 7 -
In fact, several more warning ietters followed. It
would be irnpossi'ole to summarize ali of them in a reasonabl%y
concise award. To highlight a few of these, however, we
note that on July 29, 1980, Nr. S'raney wrote a memorandum
to the grievor defining his day to day responsibilities
with respect to address stickers and courier service bills
of lading. In that memorandum, the griever was notified
that at a minimum he was expected to complete 70 envelopes
and 70 courier service waybills ?er day. This assignment
represents only 2/3's of the duties which originally xere
expected to be performed by the cjrievor.
This memorandum apparently had iittle impact upon t1he
grievor. Other memoranda in evidence s:iowed that immediately
after receiving this memorand-am it took the grievor 4'days
to complete i0 en'?elopesand 70 courier service bills of lading.
Despite further warning, the grievor's pattern of behaviour
did not change. On August 11, 1980 it xas calculated that
the grievor had taken 5 days to complete i40 envelops and
accompanying bills of lading.
The behaviour of the grievor continued unabated into
October, 1980. This month was to usher in an incredible
butwell documented incident involving 1 the grrevor s tenaency
t0 lapse into a trance-like state while seated at his desk.
3v tSis tine , :.!r 1 !lani testified-, he had resolved that the
situation could no longer continue. On the one hand, the
griever ;ias not doing iis assigned uoric. : h i 9 5a.s placing
-s-
an unfair burden on his co-workers. Xoreover, the other
aspects of his behaviour such as his apparent unwiilingness
ta acknowledge the presence of others or ccrrmunicate T..zith
others and his irregular attendance habits were having a
negative impact upon others who had to work alongside the
griever, On the other hand, Xr. ?lani testified, he was
concerned that the pievor's odd behaviour might be the
result of a medical or health problem which should be
looked into and treated. AS a result, t-b. :*!ani testi:ied,
he resolved to have the gri evor medicaily examined to
determine if the root of the behavioural problem resided
in a physical or psychological disorder.
In order t3 obtain the co-operation of the griever
with respect to a medical examination, ~!r. Xani set up
a meeting with him for October 28, 1980. This meeting
was scheduled to take place at 1:30 p.m. in the office
of Mr. ,Nani's Supervisor, Xr. 8. Ximberley. On the
morning of that day, Fir. Nani stopped by the grievor's desk
in order to remind him to attend the meeting in >lr. Kimberley's
office that afternoon. The grievor made no response. He
did not make any eye contact with Mr. Mani, did not shake
his head, did not speak. In fact, the grievor did not indicate
in any way through movement or otherwise that he was aware
of I.lr . Nani's presence. He sat at :his desk, eyes downcast,
slowing pasting labels on en'ialcps as if in a trance.
- 9 -
Mr . ?4ani persisted in his efforts to reach the grievor.
He bent down to the qrievor's eye level, i.e., the level
of the desk, hoping that he would catch the griever's
attention. Then he wrote a message on a telephone sU.2
and left this in front of the griever hoping that would
attract his attention. Still, the grievor made no response.
Hr. Xani returned to his office and called Xr. Kimberley
and another person from the Ministry, Fir. Sruce iiomer, who
was an Employee Relations Officer. When these men joined
!4r. Xani at his office, the three of them proceeded to the
grievor's desk. The grievor was sitting just as before.
Hr. i:imberley spoke softly to the grievor, asking him how
he was feeling, etc. As with Xr. Nani there was no response.
Then, Xr. Kimberley bent his head down to the level of the,
des!; and tried to talk to the grievor. Still there was no
response. This went on for about 10 to 15 minutes. T!Iere-
after, :4r. Homer attempted to get through t:he grievor.
Likewise, there xas no response.
The three men returned to icir. Nani's office. They truly
believed that they were being confronted with a very serious
medical probiem. I4r . Mani attempted to Call the grievor's
doctor but failed. Thereafter he called the Employee iiealth
Ser.rice for advice as to what to do. %e was advised to
telephone for an ambulance.
Shortly after lo:30 a.m., two ambulance attendants appeared
on the scene. !f!r. Yani, ?!r. Kimberley and !4r. Homer accompanied
i
- 10 -
them to the qrievor's desk. 1s the others had befcre, the
ambulance attendants attempted tsnake contact ;Jith the grievor
but as before, their efforts were without success. At this
point in time there Irere 5 people around the grievor at his
desk and yet the g rievor gave no indication that he realized
that anyone was present. The ambulance attendants stated
that they were puzzled but t;hey could not force t:he grievor
to accompany them to the ambulance. They suggested that the
police be called in order to facilitate the moving of the
grievor.
At about 11:15 a.m., the crowd of people around the
grievor's desk swelled once more. TWO police officers joined
the group to bring the grand totai to seven people. They
proceeded to undertake the same ritual as had the others,
i.e, bending down to the ievel of the desk and attempting
to establish contact with the grievor. They met with the
same lack of success. The grievor still gave no indication
that he realized that he was other than alone. The police
officers were at a loss. They informed :4r. llani that they
could not use force to remove the grievor in the absence
of any disturbance being caused by him.
At about t:his time, ."lr. :iilTberie!/ gently pulled the
griever's chair a slight distance away from the deslc.
At his, the griever stood up. !4r. Ki,mberley then stood
on one side of the grievor, holding his elbow to heip him.
One or' the >clice officers stood on the other side of the desk.
They draped the grievor's jacket over his shoulders and
placed his hands in the sleeves. They t:hen escorted t:he
griever from his desk to +-the elevators of the building,
and guided the griever into an open elevator. At Lhis
point, tie two police officers, .Yr. Kimberley and kNr.
Xani were accompanying the grievor.
Xhen they got to the street levei, the group got out
of the elevator, passed through tSe exit of the building
and proceeded toward the police car :jhich had been parked
on a sidestreet. (The police officers had indicated that
they would drive the grievor to a medical cliflic.) 3ut
just when one officer was abou t to open the rear door of
the car to alLow the grievor to get in, the grievor suddenly
came to life. He freed hinself from the grip of :4r.
Kimberley and the officer, and said to the group that he
was going for Lunch. tie then turned and left with a faint
smile on his Lips. These were the first %ords that the
griever had Iuttered in the entire seglJence of events.
After this remarkable lunchbreak, the griever returned
to-his desk at the office. He did not report to Mr. Kimberley's
office for the 1:30 meeting. V/hen :4r; Xani tried once again to
remind him of the 1:30 meeting, the griever lapsed into the
same trnace-Like s'tate that he had exhibited in the morning.
!.!r . :,!ani phoned the Employee Xealth Service Unit in his build-
ing. TSe nilrse from this Unit came down to see the griever
and apparently succeededinhavlng him accompany her to the
-12- -
Sealth irnit. The nurse telephoned :?r. Xani to say that she
could not find anything seriously wrong with the SeaitS of
the grievor; however, she suggested Chat the griever be
given a complete medical checlcup.
The medical checkup was long in coming. We don't believe
that it is necessary to go through the details of the
evidence in this regard. It suffices to say that there
was no co-operation on the part of the grievor in t:his
regard. The grievor ignored repeated appointments made
for him b-y the Employer. There were additional instances
*where the grievor lapsed into ids trance-li!<e state, seeminglv
failing to realize that either Mr. Hani or.someone from
Personnel was there at his desk attempting to remind ihi.
of his medical appointment.
Finally, on November 19, 1980, after :4r. ?*!ani, >lr. iiomer
and Nr. Kimberley, had once again failed to get through to
the grievor, in the sense of obtaining any reccgnition of their
presence, :Ir. !4ani called the griever's Union representative,
.Yr . Ivor Orlm, and asked him to hei? persuade the grievor to
undergo a medical examine. At first, Nr. aram was unsuccessful
in getting through to the grievor but after he was left alone
with the griever, >lr. oram was a?pazently successfu: in
persuading the grievor to go at least to his own doctor for
a ,medical examination.
3n Ycvember 20, 1980, Xi-. i.,.?4. 3oates, the Director of
t:he Finarice 3ranch of the Xinistry of %cusing, issued a memorandum
- 13 -
to the griever which reviewed the efforts by the Employer
to obtain a medical examination of the ,grievor and the
reasons why a medical examination was deemed necessar'y.
This memorandum read as follows:
To: ihlr. Deo Narain Date: Vovenber 20, 1980
In the letter of gctober 29, 1980 from Xr. Vesktimets, 3
number of problems in your performance and behaviour at work were outlined, the nature of which led us to believe that a medical problem may be the cause of your deteriorated
work performance. Accordxgly, an examination at the Employee Health Services aranch was scheduled for vou for
?lovember 7, 1?80 and you were advised of it in that ietter
of October 29th.
'ihen you failed to attend that appointment, we were unable
to obtain an e,xplanation from you and a second examination was arranged for Zovember la, 1980. Xe made special attempts to advise you of the second appointment, both when you re-
ceived t,he letter and on the af ternoon of the appointnent
:qhen you again failed to attend. .it a11 times, you did not. respond in any way to the people speaking to you: you
remained seated at your desk, a?,parent?y obiivious to their
presence, ieaving us unsure as to whether you even realized
you vere being spoken to, or if so, whether you understood what was being said.
Over the past few weeks, this problem of your not responding to people :dhen they speak to you has not been restricted to
discussions about the medical examinations, but has existed
at all times. This makes it impossible for your supervisor
to assign vou work and adds to our concerns that a medical
problem exists.
For tiie above reasons and as vou have
the ministry finds ‘It imperative that
been greviouslv advised,
we have a medical opinion
on your abili?? to perform the duties ,of yo'lr position. 3e-
cause of this and the fact that your ~erformanca has deteric-
rated to the point when your output is negligible, we have
no alternati.;e 'but to take steps to resolve this problem.
It is my :x?erstanding that ~10ur -union re?resectatrve, :.!r. ivor Orsn :as discussed this matter :sith you, and has re- , ..-
- 14 -
commended that you a--
--ange to be examined by your private
physician(s) and that you agree to allow medical information to be forwarded to the Employee Health Services aranch,
Xinistry of Government Services. You would be well advised to follow this course of action without delay.
In the meantime, I will be recommending to the Deputy Ministe:
that you be susoended without pay for 20 wor!<ing days 2endin.g investigation 0; your ability to continue in your position. We are genuinely concerned about your health and would prefer not to take such drastic action. Should you ,wish
to discuss this matter -dith anyone, or wish to arrange another apuointment with Employee Health Services, please
do not hesitate to speak to myself,
your supervisors or
the staff
of the Zuman Resources aranch. For your infor- mation, Xr. Ivor Oram of 0.S.S.U. may be reached at 954-1116.
L.N. 30ates, Director Finance aranch
LNinistry 3f Housing 965-9762
The letter ad./ised the griever to obtain a medical examination
from his own doctor without delay and permit the information
to be forwarded to Employee Health Services. In addition,
it notified the grievor that Mr. Boates was recommending
a 20 day suspension pending submission of the requested
medical information.
At the hearing, !4r. Mani testified that the reason for
giving the above memorandum to the grievor was to attempt to
bring home to him the enormity of the situation. The memorand*um
was hand-delivered to the griever at atcut ll:;)O a.m. on
3overber 21. 30th Xr. Soates and !.Ir. Kimberley went to the
grieT;or's desk and attempted to communicate T:Iith him. AS
usual, the grievor gave no indication that he realized they
were there. :le~iert:+.eless, Xr . 30ates outlined to the griavor
- 15 -
the contents of the memorandxum, stressing to the grie;lor
that the %mployer was concerned about his health and the
fact that he had not kept his p,revicus appointments wit;1
iiealth Services. ?"1r. Boates further informed the griever
that he :~as free to consult with his Lnion representative
and communicate to management through that representative.
* The memorandum :qas then left with the griever.
On Qovember 26, 1990, the grievor was suspended for
20 days pending the presentation to the Employer of nroper
medical evidence. During t:iis period Of suspension, the
grievor did go to his Fersonal family physician and he
presented to the Pmployer a medicai report from his physician.
This medical report indicated that there was nothing physically
wrong with the grievor. In the light of all that had gone
before, the Employer refused to accept this report at face
value and requested the grievor to undergo medical and psychologi-
cal examination by the Employer’s doctors. The grievor ;nias
suspended For t:go additional periods of 20 days in order to
permit this to be accomplished. In this time, the grievor
did undergo physical and psychological examination by
physicians and psycholcgists named by the Employer. The
results of these examinations accorded ,wiYn the conclusions
reached by ihe qrievor's ?erscnai >hysici.nn.
l .b,rar=ntly t_i:e ~.emcr~snd~~~ ~0~1.3 not ‘be -leli-iered to t:le ;rievor _ .- - - -
prior to Xovember 21, because the qxlevor did r.ot permit Seli'Jer-y
thereof on liovenber 20, 19a0, an.6 the griever failed, as ?er his
a0oarer.t ?rsctiae, . _ to repcrt for war!< on Xcvember 21, 1980. ay memorandum .?ated ::ovember 25, :.Ir~. ?!ani 0nce again :+arned t:?e griever
pgy2iyATJ I; 3 _ ..- lateness and absences :iithout ieave. he iatenesses
recorded rn r.:,is dccument 0cc,1rred on October 23 and :!ovember 2'1. The absences without lea*ie 0ccurred on ,Zctober 29, 30, and 3i, and
240.Iember 5, 1, 13 and 21.
i
- 16 -
On February 17, 1991 ?,!r. 3oates conducted an investigatory
meeting with the griever in order to discuss the griever's
behaviour on the job in the absence of any medical evidence
that the griever's behaviour was caused by any health disorder.
The grievor's rjnion representative, .Yr. Ivor Oram, was with
him at this meeting. Also present Xere Xr. ?!ani, +fr. Ximberley
and :4r. Homer. In preparation for this meeting, )".:. 3oates
had prepared an itemized srorlc history of the griever w'nich
documented, inter alia, all of the memoranda that had been --
passed from the Zmployer to the griever from the date of the
reorganization leading to the grievor's transfer to Financial
Systems Co-ordination. This gart of the work history was
six ?ages long. Yr . 3oates reviewed each instance that had
been recorded, asking the grievor to explain why, in the
absence of any medical reason, he had turned in such an
unacceptable job performance and behaviour.~ He also asked
the grievor whether the grievor personally had any concerns
regarding his own health or anything that he wanted to tell
management regarding his behaviour.
Despite repeated attempts by Yr. Boates during the
cours~e of this meeting to get the griever to "open up" and
discuss the situation, the grievor :,ias generally impassive.
His sole responses consisted of saying at different points,
"I did my job”, "I was not required to respond", and "1'm okay,
I feel :ine" Aithou$h the meeting took three hours, the
gr1evor never once ackncwledged t:hat his performance :<as
- 17 -
below standard or that his behaviour was nnacceptable.
Generally, !4r. Oran never entered into the discussion.
On February 20, 1981, :4r. 3oates wrote a memorandtin
to Mr. R.M. Dillon, ?.Cng., his DeouY$ !4inister, recommend-
ing that the grievor be discharged. This memorandum reported
on the results of the meeting of February 17 as follows:
Yithout going iilto specific detail on all of tine matters discussed during tne course of the meeting,
which lasted approximately three hours, my general impression and observations are as foilcws:
1.
2.
3.
:lr .
Zarain's personal appraisal of his
work performance has been comoletel~y at odds with that of his suoervisors and
managers, during the period currently under review.
When direct questions were 0ut to :4r. Narain
by others, and there was no'response yihatever,
he has denied a lack of communication and has
indicated he always responds. Again this
opinion of Hr. Xarain's is comgietely opposite
to the observations of a number of oersons both within and external to the Yinistry of
Housing staff. On one occasion there were
at least seven people present during' attempts to communicate with !lr. ?Iarain and his lack
of response was veil documented.
During the course of the February 17 meeting
and the review of the entire history of events,
at no time did :4r. !Jarain acknowledge that
there was anyt!ling unusual respecting his job performance or his behavioural pattern.
Given the absence of anv medical ?rcblens that :<ould
have a bearing on his ability to ?erfcrm or that would
affect :his beinaviour, and the comulete lack of acknow-
ledgement on his Fart of abnormalities i- . . either area,
I can oniy conclude that no ol;roosa :<ould 'be served by reinstating this employee to :?is fcrmer oosition or to a similar position within the Rrovinclal Rublic Services.
- 18 -
There is no a-uestion in my mind that the level of
performance and the behaviour demons+-atad bv Hr. sarain -* - _ is unsatisfactory and lunsuitabl2 in an office
enviroment. In fact, such behaviour, and to a lesser extent, his inadequate performance, has a verv detrimental effect on cc-wor!kers. Details reiating
to his behaviour and performance a:2 well known to
us and can 4,e attested to.
The only possible reason there may be for reinstating
:iIr . Narain would be to give hi,? a final opportunrty tc
oerfora at a satisfactory level. I believe that ample
opportani?! 'has been provided over the east year, for hi.7 to demonstrate a willingness to improve performance
and beha,riour . as of February 17, 1981, there 3as still
no acknowledgement on his ?art that any problem 2xisted.
I therefore recommend that :<r. Narain be dismissed from
the Ontario Public Service in acc9reance with Section 22
of the Public Service Act to take effect from December 1,
1980, which was the date of his orioinai suspension without
Day.
Secause; in :+i. Soates' opinion, the griever had been given
ample opoortunityy to perform at a satisfactory level and the
griever had refused -- and still refused -- to acknowledge
that improvement jias necessary, the Employer !qas justified
in discharging the grievor.
Sy letter dated February 20, 1981, the 3eput'l Hinistsr
wrote a letter to the griever discharging him. This letter
stateti, in pertinent part:
I can only conclude that your pattern of :+ork per-
fcrmance and behaviour is totally inconsistent with the normal and reasonab12 expectations of your emolOy2r
and, therefore, unacceptable. For these reasons, I am
advisi~.c you that in accoradnce with Section 22-(31 of The Public Service Act, you are dismissed from t1h2 Snt--+n 3ublic Servic2 effactive 3ecember 1, 1380. -A --
- 19 -
If you do not agree with the decision, it is your
right to file a 3rievance under the terms of
the collective agreement.
On !4arch 3, 1981 the griever filed a grievance, qr$eving
that he had been "dismissed from my employment without
just cause".
At the hearing, the case for the 'Jnion ,appeared to rast
upon testimony that the griever gave on his own behalf which
conflicted in some respects with the evidence of t:he
Zmployer . As indicated by our recitation of the facts,
however, ve :have preferred the evidence of s:he Employer to
that of the griever wherever a conflict has arisen. ve
have done so because the evidence for the Zm?loyer %as
well documented, corroborated in several respects 'by at
least three xitnesses, and entered in the main through
?4r. Xani, who appeared to the Board to 'be a very credible
witness with no personal animosity toward the qrievor.
The testimony of the griever, on the other hand, was not
corroborated in any respect. Further, the grievor was
hazy in his testimony and at some points appeared to
vacillate and make contraditory statements.
@On reviewing the facts as ~$2 find them, iie are
conT.rinced beyond a reasonable doubt t;hat the Em?loyer
had just cause to discharge the qrievor. In fact, we
find that t1i.e Smployer displayed remarkable patience
in atfem3ting to 3et the qrrevor to i?pr,3ve and searching
- 20 -
out any physical or psychological source for the qrievor's
minimal performance and odd, withdrawn behavicur. Upon
being confronted with evidence that the qrievor was neither
medically nor pschologically impaired,
along with the griever's
continued refusal to acknowledge that there was any problem
with his behaviour or performance, tSe zmployer was more than
justified in concluding that the only alternative left was
to discharge the grievor.
The grievance is dismissed.
DATED at London, Ontario this 23rd day of Octsber, 1981.
R.J. Roberts, Vice-Chairman
.
G. K. Griffin, Member