The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-0171.Changoor.84-10-12IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearing: OPSEU (Balchan Changoor) Gr ievo?? - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation and Communications) n Employer R. J. Delisle Vice Chairman J. Best Member E. Orsini Member B. Changoor, representing himself D. W. Brown, Q-C. Crown Law Office Civil Ministry of the Attorney General July 30, 1984 The grievor is a Traffic Patrolman. He complains of a one-day suspension for inappropriate use of Ministry equipment which use he denies. On November 22, 1983, during the evening, the grievor was off-duty. He had previously purchased a car battery for his own personal use from a fellow patrolman, Fraser. At about 8:00 P.m. Fraser received a radio call from one Magloughlin, another Traffic Patrolman, concerning his location and requesting him to stop at a certain location and wait for him. Fraser waited a period of time but then responded to another call. Between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Fraser received another three calls requesting a meeting but he answered that the same should wait until the shift was over. At about 9:00 p.m. the.Magloughlin vehicle following Fraser, requested him‘to pull over , pulled in front and slowed, and Fraser stopped. Fraser observed the grievor in Magloughlin's truck and fearful of the situation he left the scene. The grievor testified that he drove his own vehicle on to the highway, pulied off on to a shoulder and gaited for Fraser's vehicle to pass. The grievor believed Fraser would stop to assist a vehicle seemingly in distress and he would then return the previously purchased battery with which he was evidently dissatisfied. According to the grievor Magloughlin just "happened" along and inquired if he could help. Magloughlin's evidence, which we accept, was that the grievor had arranged to meet him there. The griever's . ../3 -3- evidence was that his own vehicle had battery problems and he therefore acceded to Magloughlin's offer to drive the grievbr and the.battery to a meeting.with Fraser. According to Magloughlin it was the grievor who asked for the ride as his own car was having problems. The grievor described their attempts to find Fraser and on failing to do so, using the Ministry vehicle to transport the battery to Fraser's residence. Magloughlin then returned the grievor to his own car and the grievor returned home. There is no argument before us that the Ministry's policy forbids personal use of patrol vehidles by employees except in cases of emergency or to accommodate an interest of the Ministry, e.g., working overtime. The grievor does not say that the discipline imposed is excessive. By his grievance he simply states.that he is "not guilty of inappropriate use of M.T.C. equipment" and prays that the earlier decision to discipline be therefore rescinded. We are at a loss to understand the griever's position since out of his own mouth, aside from the evidence of others that we accept, he is clearly guilty of inappropriate use. The Ministry's vehicle was used by the grievor for his own personal business. The grievor knows the Ministry's poli cy and clearly contravened it. Emergency vehicles are needed on the highway, the policy is obvious and justifiable, and the grievor caused the vehicle to be withdrawn from its . ../4 ., . ,i -4- assigned duties. The grievance is accordingly dismissed. DATED at Kingston, Ontario, this12th day of October, 1984. R.J.'Delisle, Vice-Chairman Y J. Best, Member E. Orsini, Member .