Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0432.Burnett.82-03-01Between: Be~fore : IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLE-MENT BOARD OPSEU (Ms. Olga Burnett) - And - Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Consumer & Commercial Relations) Employer R., L. Kennedy Vice-Chairman S.~ J: Dunkley Member A. G. Stapleton Member For the Grievor: No. Luczay, Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: L. Do rff, Manager, Personnel Services Ministry of Consumer & Commercial .Relations Hearing: February 15, 1982 -2- AWARD The Grievor was given a one day suspension from duty without pay to be effective May 4th, 1981 on the ground that her punctuality was unacceptable. She grieves that the discipline was improper and claims reinstatement of pay and benefits for the day. The basic facts are not in dispute based on the evidence presented to the board. The Grievor's employment with this Ministry commenced in June of 1976, prior to which time she had been with the Ministry of Revenue for eight years. She is employed as a secretary in the insurance department of the Ministry and her specific work assignment is'as secretary,to the legal counsel in the department. The department operates on the basis of staggered working hours with no universally fixed time for the commencement of the working day and the requirement is that 7-l/4 working hours be put in in addition to the lunch break. Normally an employee who commences work at 8:30 will complete work at 4:45, but it would appear that the actual hour of commencement is a matter that is in general worked out between the secretaries and supervisors to meet their mutual requirements. The Grievor's secretarial duties are performed for one Robert L. Hendrie and in her original letter of appointment the Grievor was advised to commence work at 8:30 r -3- a.m. The evidence was somewhat unclear as to the actual specified starting times, if any, during the period from June of 1976 until October of 1980 but it was the evidence of Hendrie that in general he had been dissatisfied with the punctuality of the Grievor but there is no record of any formal discipline or warnings being given. In any event it is clear that in October of 1980 the Grievor and Hendrie met and discussed the Grievor's time of commencement of work and that Hendrie specifically instructed that she was to commence work at 8:30 a.m. The Grievor acknowledges that that instruction was given. The Grievor apparently consulted the Union at that time as she was dissatisfied with the specified starting time but no grievance was filed. In the opinion of Hendrie her punctuality was not satisfactory subsequent to October and on January 28th, 1981 she was given a written warning that her punctuality record was not satisfactory. The allegation is made in the warning memorandum that over a period of 20 working days she had been late on each day by an average of 30 to 45 minutes. The warning stated that her punctuality would continue to be monitored for the next 20 working days and that she would be required to sign a time sheet upon arrival at work. The signing in is not a normal practice for employees in the department. The memorandum went on to warn her that any continued pattern of lateness would result in more serious disciplinary action. A grievance was filed with respect to that warning which was ultimately settled on the basis that -4- the Grievor would be transferred as soon as practicable, that an October 31st, 1980 appraisal report would be removed from her file and that there would be an appraisal of her work by a specified individual; otherwise the grievance was withdrawn so that the warning of January 28th, 1981 remains on her record including the requirement of being monitored and signing in. The time sheet in question was filed for the period February 2nd to February 27th, 1981 and during that time she signed in at 8:30 on two occasions. On three occasions she signed in, at 9:00 or later and the rest were somewhere between 8:30 and 9:00 with eight occasions being at 8:45. On February 27th, Hendrie advised her in a written memorandum that while her punctuality had shown some improvement over the month the daily average was still 16 minutes late and was by no means acceptable. The memorandum indicated that the monitoring would continue but for the period from February 27th to March 16th the Grievor was absent on a training course. The time sheet signed by the Grievor for the period March 16th to April 16th was also filed indicating two arrivals at work at 8:30 and the rest between 8:30 and 9:00 with again a preponderance of seven occasions at 8:45. Hendrie then reviewed the situation with representatives in the personnel department and the notification of suspension was given May 4th, 1981. -5- It is the position of the Union that on the basis of office practices the starting time is loosely defined and that it is unfair to single out one employee and impose unilateral rules as to her hours of work. The Union conceded that the Employer had the right to specify the hour for the commencement of work but that this right had to be exercised in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner and that that had not been done in the case of the Grievor. With respect, the evidence simply does not support the Union position that starting times are im~precisely and loosely defined. The fact the Employer permits staggered hours for various employees is not the same as saying that 'varying commencement times are appropriate for a particular employee. The evidence called by the Union would indicate that each employee does have a particular starting time and that this time is in general worked out to meet the mutual need and convenience of the secretary and X the supervisor involved. It was further clear on the evidence that employees are on occasion late and that it is generally accepted that this creates no problem provided the time is made up at some other time. That is a totally different situation from that which the evidence establishes with respect to the Grievor. There can be no question that her specified starting time was 8:30 and that she understood that to be the case. She was 'nonetheless consistently and frequently late in relation to that starting time and it was not the equivalent situation of - 6- occasional lateness testified to by other Union witnesses. It would appear that by the simple expediency of leaving for work 15 minutes earlier on each day the Grievor's punctuality record would have been significantly ~improved. She has acknowledged that she was aware of the specified starting time and she does not dispute the record of the times of her arrival at work. She has offered no particular explanation of the problem other than she has made reference to delays on buses and subway, but these problems are common to anyone who has to get to work. There was a prior warning with respect to the situation and the record of punctuality did not improve sufficiently thereafter and we would therefore conclude that a disciplinary response was appropriate and consistant with the principals of progressive discipline a one day suspension does not appear to be in any way unreasonable or extreme. In the result it is our conclusion that this grievance is dismissed. DATED this 1st day of March, 1982. "I concur" S. J. Dunkley Member L-Y /+A A. G. Stapleton Member ,