Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0070.Daley.84-05-28t- / ,- - .- / Memorandum Re: 70/S3 OPSEU (Leonora G. Daley) and Crown/Ontario (Ministry of Health) Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Thomson's dissenting opinion in the above-noted matter. Please attach this to your copy of the majority decision which was recently issued by this Board. /Ibw Encl. DLSSENT I cannot agree with the conclusions reached by the majority in this Award. In my opinion the Crievor was released not because she could not meet the standards of the position but because of personal problems between her Supervisor, Mrs. Rodrigues and herself. What the personal problems were we were never able to determine but everyone knew they were there. The majority Award sums up the situation fairly well in the last full paragraph of page 7 and the first full paragraph on page 8. Mrs. Daley was a well qualified person both in operating the word processor and krowing medical terminology. Her qualifications in these two areas seemed to be equal to or better than her Supervisor. Mrs. Rodrigues. Of course, her experience had not been in the Mental Health area and as anyone would expect she had some difficulty in new terminology, titles, etc. of individuals in this field. In spite of Mrs. Rodrigue;’ denial of prejudice and discrimination I am convinced they were present. This did not become apparent until the earlier relationship began to fall apart some time after the first appraisal which was due in April but was not done until the end of June, nearly six months after the commencement of her probationary period. We kmw her work was “Very Satisfactory” up to that time because of the comments of her Supervisor. What should have been her third appraisal which was due early in October was given as the second appraisal near the end of August and all at once we have 1 -2- an incompetent employee, an employee who goes from “Very Satisfactory” to “Very Unsatisfactory” in a matter of a few weelo. I just do not buy ‘Mrs. Rodrigues’ explanation for the delay in issuing the appraisal as wanting to give the Crievor time to improve. Some other cause was the reason but as we all agree we were not able to determine what it was. The standard of two error free documents a day set for the Grievor in early September by the Supervisor may seem fair but with her correcting the documents to her standards, which were inconsistent, it became an impossible task. Mrs. Pearl Ene who was the person in charge when the Supervisor was absent stated that Mrs. DaleyS work was no worse than other employees and the standards set for the Crievor could not have been met by most of the other employees. I can appreciate the dilemma a Chairman finds himself in a case such as this. The Insanally decision (#7/83) (Jolliffe) makes it even more difficult. If that decision is followed then there is ,little use of a probationary employee filing a grievance no matter how justified it may be. However, I do not agree with that decision and if it is to stand then certainly the Union must do everything in its power to amend this Article. The fact the Grievor ‘was terminated may not have been disciplinary but certainly in my opinion she could have met the standards required of other employees if she had had a Supervisor who was a little more understanding and had not let personal feelings interfere with her judgement. It may be true that Mrs. Rodrigues is intelligent but a person with intelligence only and who lacks understanding and patience does not always make a good Supervisor.