Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0711.Issayevitch.86-12-090711/85 IN THE MATTER-OF AN ARBITRATION - Under - THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: -- Appearing for the Griever: Appearing for the Employer: Hearings : OPSEU (Jordan Issayevitch) ~- and - Griever The Crown in Righi of Ontario (The Ministry of Government Services) Employer Prof. R.J. Roberts, Vice-Chairman I.J. Thomson, Member I.J. Cowan, Member M.J. Rotman, Counsel Rotman and Zagdanski Barristers and Solicitors L.H. Kolyn, Counsel Ministry of the Attorney General February 13, 1986 May 6, 1986 i 2. No one wanted to see the grievor, Jordan Issayevitch, get fired -- except, perhaps, Jordan Issayevitch. In the months before he was fired, the grievor literally courted discharge while the Ministry twisted and turned in vain efforts to head it off. Now, having regretted his success, the qrievor seeks reinstatement. The whole sorry tale began some years ago, in 1981. At that time, the grievor was an Architectural Job Captain with the Ministry. He had important responsibilities for the design and development of architectual drawings of buildings and additions required by various Ministries. He was good at what he did, by all accounts a perfectionist. And he was experienced. His seniority dated back to December 20, 1965. The qrievor had two weaknesses: his perfectionism and a tendency to be disorganized. Until late 1981, however, these did not appear to have caused any significant problem. But then things changed. The allowable time for the preparation of contract documents such as architectual drawings tiS re- duced. Everyone had to adjust. The grievor could not. He began to fail to meet project commitments and this failure reflected poorly upon his Department. Mr. J. Bartha, who had been his Supervisor 3. since 1972, tried to counsel him in an effort to induce. him to improve his productivity. Everyone aqreed.that the main culprit was the grievor's perfectionism. It drove him to over- detail his drawings, in the sense of insisting upon repeating in view after view the same details as he had drawn before. It may.have been good craftsmanship but it was poor economics. The repeat-detailing was time consuming and costly, and it was not necessary for the purposes for which the grievor's drawings. were to be used. The qrievor felt that his personal sense of professionalism was under attack. He resented it, and his attitude began to deteriorate. This deterioration was chronicled by Mr. Bartha 1984, as follows: in a letter to the grievor dated May 15, . . . You may recall, at the end of 1981 and early in 1982, Mr. Dastur and I had several discuss2ons with you on meeting target dates and the unsatisfactory trend which was developing in your work i,n this area. We offered help to overcome this problem and were expecting improvement. This was brought to 'your attention again, in writing, on February 16, 1982. Rather than improvement, this problem has persisted and lately intensified. Back in January, I had requested you to show me the drawings of one of your projects, which should have been ready for tender call. You told me that they were lost. I asked Aslam Choudhary to.follow up on this issue on a daily basis. This approach finally resulted in your submission of one architectural and two engineering drawings early in March; hardly the full documentation for the project. Durinq~the months of January and February, help was offered to you and your cooperation requested for. the quick completion of the project documents. Your uncooperative attitude, however, prevented this and, 4. as a result, thisproject is now more than 10 weeks behind schedule. Another area of concern to me is your unwillingness to work with others. You have demonstrated it lately with another project of yours, where you had the responsibility of being the job captain and work with a draftsman. Instead of giving direction to the draftsman, you chose to redraw the drawings. As a result, this project has also been delayed. I have also discussed with you your repeat-detailing and 'overdrafting. These activities are time-consuming and potentials for errors occur when quick changes are required, therefore they should not be practitied. As we have discussed several times at our staff meetings, some details should not be repeated. In spite of my numerous requests, you have not remedied these problems. . . . In 1984, matters began to come to a head. Puzzled by the grievor's refusal to cooperate, Mr. Bartha sought help frbm other quarters. At his request; Mr. D. Dastur, the Director &.y..~ of the Branch, called into his office Mr. A. Cottrell, the grievor's Union Steward. According to Mr. Cottrell, Mr. Dastur told him that he and Mr. Bartha had reached an impasse with t~he qrievor.~ They asked him to speak to the grievor about getting on with his work be~cause neither he nor Mr. Bartha ciii'ked to see the grievor fired. Mr. Cottrell stated, that he .spoke to the grievor, but when he did so the grievor got terribly upset and asked Mr. Cottrell to leave him alone. In November, 1984, Mr. Bartha attempted to arrange a.medical examination for the grievor. He was beginning to .' . . 5. suspect that the grievor's behavior might have derived ~from a health-related problem. It took several-months to arrange for the grievor to meet with an industrial psychologist at the expense of the Ministry. In March, 1985, however, the grievor refused to go. '~'-"+'.-' -2 In fact, it seems that Mr. Bartha's well-intentioned efforts to assist the grievor Precipitated more bizarre behavior. The grievor sent a package to the Deputy Minister containing copies of several confidential ,memoranda regarding his work performance. When this package was returned unopened to Mr. Bartha and the latter requested an explanation from the grievor, the grievor wrote a memorandum accusing Mr~. Bartha of unlawfully intercepting mail and denying him his basic human right to.~ meet with his Deputy Minister. It might be said that at this point, the grievor's flirtation with discharge blossomed into courtship. The grievor began refusing Mr. Bartha's requests to meet with him and virtually ceased performing any work. Disciplinary responses began to build. Regardless, the grievor doggedly pursued the path of insubordination. He posted on his personal bulletin board documents containing ad hoministic attacks - upon Mr. Bartha. On April 22 and April 30, 1985; the grievor met with Mr. E. L. Steeves, Acting Executive Director in the Ministry, 6. and essentially told him that he had chosen to pursue a course leading to dismissal. 'Mr. Steeves detailed this in a letter. to the grievor dated May 2, 1985, as follows: Dear Mr. Issayevitch:' This is to confirm the results of our re~cent meetings on April 22, and April 30, 1985. As you know, at the request of the Deputy Minister, Peter Van Horne, Acting Director of Personnel, and myself, met with you to discuss your complaint following your request for a meeting with the Deputy Minister. Subsequent to my initial meeting with you on April 22, whereby you elaborated on your concerns and. made specific reference to the fact that you felt some of the correspondence regarding.you performanc~e was erroneous, I met with your Branch,Director, Asia Henein, and Julius Bartha, your immediate Manager, to review the situation. I also conducted a detailed review of the various correspondence that has been placed on your Personnel file. On April 30, 1985, Mr. Van Horns and I met with you once again to review our findings and discuss the matter,further. At this meeting, I indicated that my investigation had satisfied me that Management had acted properly in bringing their concerns about your performance to your attention. I also indicated that I had reviewed the target dates a.nd performance expectations for. the Gravenhurst job with Management, and was satisfied that these expectations were reasonable<, given your experience and qualifications. During the course of our discussions, I pointed ,out to you that it was important for you to, realize that it is your responsibility as an employee to carry out the duty assignments given to you by Management. You indicated that you understood .thiS, but that you could not do so while these "lies" contained in the various memoranda existed. Both Mr. Van Horne and I pointed out a number of alternative I options you could use to register your concern with these evaluations of your performance. . . . In addition, we asked you if you were interested in any other job assignments within the Ministry. You stated that you were not interested in any other assignments, nor were you interested in pursuing any of the above options to resolve this matter. _. 7. Instead, you indicated that you would not carry out your work while these erroneous statements existed. I pointed out to you that this course of action would ultimately lead to further action by the Ministry up to and including dismissal. I also indicated that Management did not want this to happen, since you have approximately 19 years of service with this Ministry. You indicated that you understood this and that you felt you had no other choice, giventhe circumstances. I would like to thank you for your honesty in assisting us in dealing with your complaint, and trust that .~ you will give further consideration to the various alternatives we discussed. Sincerely, (signed) Eric L. Steeves, Acting Executive Director Despite being told that the Ministry was willing to accommodate hi~m and did not want to dismiss him, the grievor indicated that ho was not interested in being moved to another job assignment ~.. _ in the Ministry and that he,.would continue to refuse to carry out his work. 'C. Matters went from bad to worse. In May, ignoring the fact that he was on suspension forone day for refusal to work, the qrievor showed up at the office as usual and refused to leave. When confronted by Mr. Bartha, he asked him if he would call in the police to remove him. On May 30, the grievor received a five-day suspension for persistently refusing to work. 'Again, he refused to leave the office during the per,iod of the suspension. 8. Finally, in late June, 1985, the Ministzy took the apparently unprecedented step of arranging for t.le grievor to meet with the Deputy Minister, Mr. G. R. Thompson. According to the qrievor this meeting lasted for about an hour. The grievor stated that Mr. Thompson asked him if he would like '.to work somewhere else in the Ministry and the grievor replied t~hat he did not,want to. The grievor sa.iA he explained to Mr. Thompson that because of the letter, in his personnel file and the rumors which had been ger2rated in his Department, he believed that no matter where he ;ie:?t a negative assessment would follow him. It would be, the grievor stated, like being black-listed. kt this point, the die was cast. On June 27, Mr. Thompson wrote the following -Letter of dismissal to the grievor: DearMr. Issayev:tch: You have been advised bothorally and in writing' -on numerous occasions of the requirement to complete work assigned to you by your supervisor. Your persistent failure to meet the specified requirements has disrupted the operaticas of your work unit and placed an unfair burden on your co-workers. In an effrrt to assist you in resolving your work performarze problems the,Ministry suggested that you meet with Employee Counselling Services. -In additio~i an appointment was scheduled through Dr. Hugh C!.ambers with Dr.-Sheldon Geller. You indicated, -however, that you were not prepared to cooperate and yju did not seek ccunselling nor did you attend the cheduled appointment. 9. You were advised by your supervisor on March 19, 1985 that further'failure to perform the work assigned to you would lead to disciplinary action by the Ministry. On April 10, 1985 you were officially reprimanded for not ccmpleting your assigned work to specified target deadlines. On May 1, 1985 you received a 1 day suspension without pay for failing to perform your assigned duties. A new project was assigned to you and on May 30, 1985 you received 2 5 day suspension without pay for refusing to perform this assignment. In addition you were given a final warning that any repetition of this misconduct would lead to dismissal. On June llth, 1985 you once again refused to perform your assigned work. You responded to your. Director, Mr. A; Henein, on July 17th, 1985 stating-that your supervisor's allegation was factual and that you would not attend the~scheduled meeting. In view of your persistent refusal to perform your assigned duties, despite progressive disciplinary action by the Ministry, it seems.unlikely that you .. can be relied on in the future to meet the requirements of your position and fulfill your responsibilities, as an employee. Therefore, in accordance with Section 22(3) of the Public Service Act you are hereby dismissed from the Public Service effective immediately. All monies owing to you and any~ necessary documentation will be forwarded to you at your home address. Yours sincerely, Glen R.. Thompson Deputy Minister The griever was dismissed,'effective immediately. . . At the hearing, ,Mr. Rotman forcefully argued that in view of the griever's seniority of about 20 years with the Ministry, the Board should substitute lesser discipline :: 10. for this discharge and reinstate the grievor, perhaps subject to conditions. Indeed, the discharge of a high-seniority employee must be subjected to rigorous examination to determine whether a less incisive penalty might have been suff- icient. On this score, however, the Ministry cannot be faulted. The record shows that with ccnsummate patience over a long period of time managementattempted to find a solution other than discharging the grievor. The grievor frustrated each one. Toward the end, he became committed to achieving his own discharge. Finally, he rejected even the assistance of the Deputy-Minister. Ir seems that as far as the grievor was concerned, he was not going to be diverted from his chosen path.~ How can this Board fault the Ministry for enduring I.~ so long before allowing the grievor to achieve his goal? We cannot. We are bound to conclude that the Ministry had just cause to discharge the grievor. Having under Article 18( A& , R.S.O. 1980 so concluded, we have exhausted our jurisdiction 2)tc.j of the Crown Emplovees Collective Barsainino c. 108, which is to determine, inter alia,. whether an employee "has been...dismissed...from his employment without just cause." In view of our finding that just cause existed, the grievance must be dismissed. - ----~_- 11. DATED at London, Ontario, this 9th day Of December 1986. - I. J. (see attached Addendum) I. J. Cowan, Member ADDENDUM On the evidence presented to this Board I agree with the award. The griever seemed to have a “death wish” as far as his job was con- cerned. Many people tried to assist and save him from himself to no avail. It seemed to me that concern was expressed by everyone about the griever’s being dismissed and left without employment after nearly twenty years of ,~~ :. service. During most of this time his work was satisfactory and no one could find fault with him. In later years the position became more stressful ,and it seems~ the griever could not cope with this. It is to be hoped that despite the result that had to be reached in this matter, the Ministry in a spirit of generosity and compassion would find some position for the griever particularly as he has expressed great regret over his actions and is unlikely to ever repeat the same mistakes.