Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0784.Morke et al.88-09-01SETTLEMENT RkGLEMENT DES GRIEFS IN THE MATTER OF.AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (D. Morke et al) -:. and Grievers The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) Employer Before: P.J. Brunner Vice Chairman I.J. Thomson Member A.G. Stapleton Member. For the Crievors:., B. Herlich Counse 1 Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers and Solicitors For the Employer: c. Slater Solicitor Legal Services Branch Ministry of Community and Social Services Hearings : April 23, 1987 January 25, 1988 January 26, 1988 -2- DECISION On July, 9, 1985, Daniel Morke, who was then classified as a Residential Counsellor II at the Huronia Regional Centre (hereinafter referred to as the Centre), an institution for the developmentally handicapped and mentally retarded in the City of Orillia, was suspended for three days for allegedly abusing one R. W., a blind, deaf and retarded resident. On June 18, 1986, after an extended leave of absence due to illness, he was demoted to the classification of Building Cleaner 2. Morke now grieves both decisions of the Employer, alleging that the former represents the imposition of discipline without just cause and the latter a violation 'of Article 5.6 of the collective agreement between the Ontario Publics Service Employees Union (hereinafter referred .to as the Union) and ~the Crown (Ministry of Community and Social Services) in Right of Ontario as represented by Management Board of Cabinet (hereinafter referred to as the Employer). .,~Th~e.. reasons for Morke's suspension are set out in a letter dated ,July 9, 1985 from the Centre's Administrator which is reproduced in full below: "Further to my letter to you of June 14, 19S5 and the meeting, of July 4, 1985 in which you were informed of the results .of the investigation into z t ‘, - 3 - allegations that YO" acted inappropriately in relation to your responsibilities as a Residential Counsellor, the following are my findings.. I find that you did abuse a client in the D-l Block Program on Thursday, June 13, 1985 at approximately 9:30 a.m. Your inappropriate be- haviour towards the client resulted in damage to both his physical and psychological wellbeing. This behaviour on your part is unacceptable. Accordingly I am implementing a penalty of a suspension of 3 days without pay. All other salary and benefits, since the date of your suspension, will be reinstated. Also, upon your return to work I will be referring you for a psychiatric and/or psychological assessment to review your, suit- ability to carry out your duties as a Residential Counsellor. When you return. to work you will be assigned to an- area where you do not work alone and where your performance can be closely super- vised. Would you please report for duty to the office of the Director of Residential Life effective Thurs- day, July 11, 1985." Morke returned to work on July 11, 1985. On July 25, 1985, he was granted sick leave by reason of reactive anxiety and depression resulting from the incident of June 13, 1985. On October 8, 1985 he w,as directed by the Employer to undergo a medical examination pursuant to then Article 51.9 of the collective agreement. Morke refused on the ground that he was consulting a physicians of his own choosing and accordingly did not want to submit to. a further medical examination at the instance of the Employer. :z -4 - On February 10;' 1986 he advised the Personnel Department at the Centre that he was prepared to return to work immediately and forwarded a certificate from a Dr. D : Glick, a general practitioner specializing in hypnosis he had consulted periodic- ally for counsellinq and therapy, who now certified that !4orke was willing to resume his duties as a Residential Counsellor II although he recommended that night shift duties might be more '_ appropriate for the time being. On February 13, 1986, the Acting Director of Residential Services at the Centre wrote the following letter to Morke: "I am in receipt of your letter of February 10, 1986 to Ms. J. Fraser, in which you have indicated that you are prepared to return to work immediate- ly, from an extended sick .leave. . . Because of the nature and extent of your medical history over the past number of months, .I must request that you provide. me with an up to date medical report before returning to your place of work. This report should contain - &i 1 A detailed statement concerning the nature and extent of your present disability, if any; (ii) An opinion concerning any limi~tations upon your ability to perform the duties required of a Residential Counsellor in an institu- tional setting.' Relevant job descriptions and detailed position requirements will be provided for consideration by the medical examiner. (iii) An opinion indicating a prognosis for future attendance in the event your condition remains unstabilized and future treatment is required. ^ I’ : -5 - In order to assist in obtaining this information an independent medical examination through Employ- ee Health Services will be arranged for you in accordance with Article 51.9 of th@ Collective Agreement. Expenses involved in respect of this medical examination will be paid by the Ministry. Any other treatment expenses will be your own responsibility. We anticipate your full cooperation in this matter. You will be advised of the date and time of this appointment. Transportation can be ar- ranged for you, if you require it." On March 14, 1986 he was advised that an appointment had been made for him with Dr. Hugh Chambers, the Medical Director of Health Services of the Ministry of,Government Services. and one -Dr. Sheldon H. Geller an "independent consultant". In the event, neither Dr. Hugh Chambers nor any oth&r~.Gerson licenced to .practice medicine either in Ontario or in any other jurisdiction saw fit .to examine Morke on the direction of the Employer. Instead, Dr. Chambers simply referred Morke to Dr. Sheldon H.' &-ller, an industrial, organizational and counselling psychologist for a psychological assessment. 'On April 24, 1986, Morke underwent a diagnostic interview at the instance of Dr. Geller. In addition, five psychological tests were administered for the. purposes of determining his employ- ability and level of psychological functioning. On April 29, - 6 - 1986, Dr. Geller submitted a report to Dr. Huqh Chambers outlining his findings and conclusions. It is. not necessary to set out in great detail the.contents of Dr. Geller's report. We make reference however to ~the following findings as well as that portion .of the report which is found under the heading of "Summary of Findings and Recommendations'!. "Psychometric tests revealed a number of interes- ting findings. The 16 Personality Factor Test', an inventory which measures varying degrees of normality, revealed Mr. Morke to have a below- average tolerance for stress and to have a tendency to be suspicious~ and intolerant of other people. Individuals of this type of profile are often found to have difficulty coping with interpersonally trying or difficult situations. Because of Mr. Morke's tendency to be evasive'and defensive, the Rorschachprojective technique was utilized. -The results of this test revealed Mr. Morke to have repressed aggression, with the potential for acting;out. AS well, there were suggestions of difficulties with 'impulse control and self control. His responses revealed that at the present~time, Mr. Morke's defenc,es are intact, but given his low tolerance for stress, he has an elevated potential for behaving in an inappropri- ate and potentially harmful manner. Finally, this part of the assessment revealed Mr. Morke's thinking to be rather concrete in nature and consequently, his judgment may be inappropriate in situations which are ~deemed to be ambiguous or unstructured. Consequently, when under stress or when involved in an emergency situation, Mr. Morke may demonstrate responses that are inappropriate through the use of excessive force or- poor judgment. Summary of Findings and Recommendations "Mr. Dan Morke is thirty-two years old and was referred because of concerns pertaining to his '-I -7- ability to function effectively as a Residential Counsellor working' with retarded individuals. Concern pertaining to Mr. Norke was expressed by his employer in light of Mr. Morke's alleged abuse of a blind and retarded resident, and in view of numerous incidents in which Mr. Morke has behaved inappropriately or has had difficulty in maintain- ing good interpersonal relationships with co- workers. The results of this assessment revealed Mr. Morke to be free of any clearly indisputable symptoms of psychopathology. In this regard, Mr. Morke is not flor~idly psychotic, is not hallucinating, does not have a major thought disorder, and is not suffering from a major mood disturbance. However, the results of this assessment do reveal some very significant findings which lead me to question Mr. Morke's ability to perform in a consistent and acceptable manner in the position of Residential Counsellor. The job classification for a Residential Counsel- lor requires, among other duties, that Mr. Morke "manage incidents of disturbed behaviour", "res- pond to, report and record all client accidents and injuries", and "assist during emergency situations" that might be involved when providing care for developmentally handicapped clients, and those of all levels of mental retardation ranging from profound to mild. The results ~of this assessment revealed Mr. Morke to have a lowered tolerance for stress, combined with a propensity for allowing his repressed aggression to surface when required to deal with situations which he finds stressful, such as would be involved in an emergency. It is for these reasons that I felt Mr. Morke should not work as a Residential Counsellor, and if possible be transfer-red to another position which would not require him to be responsible for the care of the developmentally handicapped or mentally retarded." On May 2, 1986, Dr. Chambers addressed a memorandum to Miss J. Fraser, a Human Resources Representative at the Centre and put - 8 - _ his own views in the following terse sentence. "Followinq.review of Dr. Geller's report and the information provided by your Ministry, I am in agreement with the above statement." Subsequently, Dr. Geller consulted with Dr. D. Glick on the telephone and on May 6, 1986, forwarded the following letter to Dr. Hugh Chambers in which he set out Dr. Glick's opinion. "Further to my report on the above-named, dated April 29, 1986, I spoke today with Dr. Daniel Glick who advised me that he is primarily involved in hypnosis. Dr. Glick last saw Mr. Morke in February of 1986 and it is~ his. opinion that Mr. ,,Morke is not suffering ,from any major psycho- pathology, such as a multiple personality, amnesia or schizophrenia. Dr. Glick went on to state that Mr. Morke appears to be concerned about the care he provides to his residents, and may have developed.enemies among his co-workers because of his perfectionistic orientation-~ Dr. Click stated that he would have no reservations about having Mr. Morke return to his job 'as a Residential Counsellor." This was followed on May 29, 1986 by a furthermemorandum which we reproduce in full. "Please refer to my memorandum of May 2, 1986 concerning the above named employee of your .Ministry. With that memorandum was enclosed a copy of Dr. Geller's report *concerning this employee. Subsequently Dr. Geller was in contact with Dr. Daniel Glick who had been treating Mr. Morke.. I have enclosed for your information a subsequent report which Dr. Geller submitted following his conversation with Dr. Glick. You will note that Dr. Glick takes a different point of view than Dr. Geller. However, it must be remembered that Mr. Morke was sent to Dr. Geller for a specific purpose, that is, to determine his fitness to work with residents while Dr. Glick's contact with Mr. Morke was for purposes of treatment. In a conversation with Dr. Geller he indicated that he still stands behind his original opinion that Mr. Morke should not work as a Residential Counsellor etc. Based on the evidence provided by your Ministry and the fact that Dr. Glick probably did not have access to most of it and on Dr. Geller's report, I am still in. agreement with Dr. Geller's opinion. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. It was these two memoranda from Dr. Hugh Chambers which on June 18, 1986 resulted in Morke being assigned "for reasons of health" to the classification of Building 'Cleaner, purportedly pursuant to Article 5.6 of the collective agreement. It is'now appropriate to ma.ke mention of certain additional medical evidence. On July 25, 1985 Morke consulted Dr. D.~.Glick. He diagnosed Morke as suffering from reactive anxiety and depression flowing from the accusation levelled against him by the Centre that he Chad abused R. W. On February 7, 1986, Dr. Glick was of the view that Morke was able to return to work but nevertheless referred him to a psychiatrist, Dr. H. Rochman for assessment and he on April 9, 1986 reported that Morke was not psychotic nor suffering from any organic dysfunction. At the hearings, Counsel for Morke submitted a very comprehensive psychiatric report which was prepared by Dr. ti. H. Ben-Aron, the Chief Psychiatrist, Forensic and Patient Unit at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry as well as an assistant professor of the Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto and 'the results of a series of psychological and psychomectric tests conducted by members of the department of psychology at The Clarke Institute. Dr. Ben-Aron's findings and conclusions may be summarized as follows. 1. Morke suffers from a subtle organic impair- ment that results from a. head injury that he sustained when four years of age. 2. Although of average intellectual ability, he has an impaired cognitive performance pattern with deficits consistent with an organic dys- function. In this respect, he tends to be rigid, concrete and inflexible at times in his thinking and, as a ~. result of 'these difficulties, may be an individual who is prone to having problems in communication and social interaction. 3. As a result of his cognitive impairment and somewhat truncated- social and interpersonal - 11 - relationship skills, he is an individual who can be seen as having difficulties in getting along with people around him. He is the type of individual who focuses his attention on the tasks at hand and thereafter persists in a dogged fashion to achieve success at that task. 4. Because of his lack of flexibility he is also the kind of person who might have trouble coping with ambiguous situations and further- more, may be an individual who is not fully aware of the effect of his rigidity on others. This promotes friction between his co-workers and himself, particularly at those times when there sexists a difference in opinion as to the best .way of dealing with issues and problems. 5. He does not suffer from any of the conven- tional major mental illnesses or personality disorders. However, he has underlying feel- ings of depression and some feelings of insecurity based on a. lowered self-esteem stemming from a self-concept that includes his having "limitations". 6. His psychological tests suggest that he is an individual who tends to avoid acknowledging and expressing anger and to that degree individuals with similar scores do show a vulnerability to episodic outbursts of aq- gression. Furthermore, the tests indicated that ambiguous situations would be difficult and stressful for him. He does not suffer from any psychological disinhibltinq states. 7. He does not suffer from any disturbance which would impair his .ability to complete the tasks of his job as residential counsellor aside from those demands placed upon him in social interactions with colleagues, whom he perceives as being cavalier, or uncommitteed or sloppy or negligent in the performance of their duties in looking after residents. . . I ~. a- - 12 - a. His high standards and his inflexibility and rigidity of thinking would result in friction and at times in conflict between himself and colleagues whom he viewed as not doing the best. To that degree he is vulnerable to these kinds of sentiments and coming into conflict with his colleagues. For the above reasons Dr. Ben-Aron recommended that Morke ~..~. should work in a situation where his strong will and .persistence would be an asset and where the job requirements are clear and unambiguous and that he seriously consider resigning from his work as a Residential Counsellor at that facility by reason of his difficulty in getting along with some of his co-workers at the Centre. On January 13, 1988 Dr. Ben-Aron submitted a further report ins which he confirmed Morke's suitability for continued emplby- ment at the Centre as a counsellor and emphasized that from a psychiatric perspective there was no concern that he would represent potential risk to the residents. He re-iterated that Morke does not suffer from any psychological impairment that would interfere with his ability to perform the. job. He also reported that over the course of some five sessions with Morke, the latter made some progress in understanding show at times he comes to have problems with his co-workers. However, Dr. Ben-Aron opined that there was no question that he continues to have very . . .~ .I . - 13 - strong feelings about his work ethic and how this is incongruent with that of many of the individuals around him at the Centre. We now turn to the events of June 13, 1985. At approximately 9:30 a.m. R.W., who is a blind, deaf and profoundly mentally handicapped resident, was brought into the Environmental Program room at the Centre. Present at this time and working with a number of other residents was Morke and one Chris Brooks, then a summer student studying Developmental Services Work at Georgian Colleqe'of Applied Arts and Technology. As R.W. is a self-abusive patient he wears a helmet and mitts at all times to reduce~the risk of self-harm. He does not verbally communicate but can vocalize noises. While there,is some doubt as to whether R.W. was in a "good" .:~ or "bad" mood that. morning,? it is clear that he was a most -_ difficult resident who needed to be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity at all times. R.W. was placed into a rocking chair where he remained for approximately five minutes. Brooks testified that at one point Morke threw a soft leather pillow and then two or three stuffed toys at R.W. which bounced off his helmet, a process which he . .- - 14 - repeated on two occasions. As a result, R.W. became agitated, flailed his arms, screamed and used his helmet to scrape his left shoulder thus aggravating a previous injury. Cheryl McCaque, another summer student who was taking residents in and out of the room, observed Morke throwing the pillow at R.W. She corroborated Brooks' evidence as to the agitation and screaming as well as scraping by R.W. However, her observations in this respect were only momentary and she took no preventive action. . . Morke gave evidence that her placed R.W. into the rocking chair because he was yelling and disturbing other residents. He admitted tossing a small pillow described at times as a bean bag and at others; as a ball at R.W. which'first fell in his lap and then rolled to the floor. His intention was to distract R.W. so that he would refrain from disturbing the others. Morke also stated that he "tapped" R.W.'s helmet twice lightly with a yellow drumstick that he was using in his work with another patient. A few minutes later he took R.W. out -of the room to the outside grounds where he remained with him for about ten minutes and then returned. However, Brooks testified that he left with another r~esident while she attempted to calm .R.W. down .and brought the matter to the attention of other employees at the Centre. - 15 - The evidence indicates that Brooks and Morke did not relate well to each other and the former testified that she was apprehensive for her job and accordingly decided not to intervene even though both she and McCaque termed Morke's conduct to be "inappropriate". On this evidence we make the following material findings of fact as to the incident of June 13, 1985. R.W. was seated in a rocking chair in the Environmental Program room at the Centre. He was somewhat agitated which he expressed. by yelling. In order to distract him, Morke tossed a soft bean bag or ball which first hit his helmet! then rolled into his lap and thereafter~ onto the floor. We also find that Morke tapped R.W. 's helmet lightly with a drumstick again for the purposes of distracting him with the hope ,of bringing 'to an end his state of agitation. We ,do not accept the evidence of Brooks that then bean baq or ball was thrown twice or that s.tuffed toys were also involved. In this respect we prefer the evidence of Morke as corrobora~ted by that of McCaque. However; we also find that these actions on the part of Morke had the effect of further disturbing R.W. who.-then by flailing his arms and other motions aggravated a pre-existing injury. We agree with Morke that the' tapping of R.W. 's helmet by means of the drumstick, a matter that ” : - 16 - was not observed by either Brooks or McCague, was inappropriate. We make the same finding as to the throwing or tossing of the bean bag or ball. While it may have been done with the intention of distracting R.W., it was not in our view a reasonable response 0,~ the part of a residential counsellor who was called upon to deal with behaviour such as that exhibited by R.W. We therefore agree with the Employer that Morke's actions we're inappropriate and that some disciplinary.response was warranted. However, we do not think that a three day suspension was either just or reasonable in all of the circumstances. Morke is 32 .years of age and has been an employee since July 31, 1981 and a Residential Counsellor at the Centre for almost five years. He has never' been disciplined or counselled for inappropriate behaviour or conduct. The .incident'in. question in our view was not one of serious moment and we are not prepared to give it the same gloss as did the Employer. In our opinion, it was a reflex reaction on the part of Morke which although inappropriate in the circumstances, was not the result of a pre-meditated intent to apply force or bring about psychological '~'-L'- or emotional harm. Neither do we view his reaction to have been .by reason of the "stress" of the situation in which he found himself nor do we think that what he did was an outburst of anger. In our view, it Was an automatic response to R.W. 's conduct' without sufficient .?,. '_ - 17 - consideration as to how he could be more appropriately distracted from his state of agitation. Although what he did would appear to fall within the meaning of "abuse" as set out in the Ministry of Community and Social Services "Standards of Conduct and Discip- linary Guidelines", which treats a variety of conduct as amounting to "abuse", we do not think that his actions amounted to an "abuse" within the ordinary meaning of the word and we are not prepared to approve the Employer's.designation of his conduct as such. In our view, a three day suspension was excessive and cannot be supported. As the Employer did not and could not rely on the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining. Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.108 as amended, we have the power to substitute such other penalty for the discipline as we consider just and reasonable in all of the circumstances. In our ~view;- a written war,ning to the effect that further inappropriate action of a similar nature might well result in more severe discipline is the penalty that we think is the just and reasonable one in all of the circumstances. No reasons were advanced at the hearing as to why Morke should not be paid for any losses in wages and other benefits that he may have sustained as a result of the three day suspension and the' Employer is accordingly ordered to forthwith 5 - 18 - compensate him therefore. We shall retain jurisdiction over this matter in the event any difficulties arise in the calculation of the compensation. We now turn to the second grievance. The case agains-t-..Morke was argued by the Employer on the assignment which was fin the nature of a demotion basis that his to the classif health" within agreement and ication of Building Cleaner 2 was "for reasons of the meaning of Article 5.6 of the collective was supported by the results of a "medical examination" conducted under Article 51.9 of the agreement. These provisions read as follows: "Article 5.6 Where, .for reasons of health, an ~employee is assigned to a posltion in a classification not having a lower maximum salary, he shall not receive any salary progression or salary decrease for a period of six (6) months after his assignment, and if at the end of that period, .he is unable to accept employment in his former classification, he shall be assigned to a classi- fication consistent with his condition." - 19 - Article 51.9 Where, for reasons of health, an employee is frequently absent or unable to perform his duties, the Employer may require him to submit to a medical examination at the expense of the Em- ployer." The Employer's decision was based entirely on the memoranda of Dr. Hugh Chambers dated May 2 and 29, 1986 which in turn rested on the reports of Dr. Sheldon Geller dated April 29 and May 6, 1986. No other "medical examination" was conducted at the instance of the Employer. The collective agreement contains no definition of "medical examination" but it is clear to us that in the absence of such, a medical examination must beg one that is conducted by a medical practitioner licenced to practice medicine or in the appropriate case, dentistry, either in the'-~Province of Ontario or some other recognized jurisdiction. There was here no examination of any kind by Dr. Hugh Chambers. He never met Morke. He decided to simply refer the entire matter to Dr. Sheldon Geller, who although a competent registered psychiatrist, 'was not a person' licenced to practice medicine. Relying exclusively on the report of Dr. Geller, he rejected the report of Dr. D. Glick based as it was in part on - 20 - the opinion of a psychiatrist, Dr. H. Rochman, out of hand. It was in this fashion that Dr. Chambers made his recommendation that Morke was not fit to work with residents and that he should be transferred to another posi~tion where he would not be responsible for the care of the developmentally handicapped and retarded. In our view, there was no "medical examination" within the meaning of Article 51.9. In fact the Employer rejected the only medical evidence it had, namely the opinions of Dr. D. Glick and Dr. H. Rochman and relied on the opinion of a registered psychologist in making its determination that there were "reasons ,of health" which required Morke's assignment by way of demotion to the classification of Building Cleaner 2. The evidence of Dr. D. Glick and that of Dr. H. Rochman reasonably supports the conclusion tha,t although Morke is somewhat a perfectionist and that for this reason his inter- personal relationships and his abilities to get along with co-workers may at times leave something to be desired, that nevertheless he is fit to perform the duties.of his ‘classifi- cation of Residential Counsellor II. If the'matter before us were to be judged solely on the basis of the "medical evidence" available to the Emplpyer when it made its decision on June 18, 5 = ,_~~ - 21 - 1986, we would have had no hesitation whatever in setting aside the challenged assignment by way of demotion. The evidence of Dr. Ben-Aron, a psychiatrist with impressive qualifications and a medical practitioner of considerable experience and expertise however causes us some concern and indeed was relied on by Counsel for the Employer. Nevertheless, viewing his reports as a whole, we accept his opinion that Morke does not suffer from any psychological impairment that would interfere with .his ability to perform the job of Residential Counsellor at the Centre and that he does not represent a risk of harm to the residents with whom he is in daily contact. We do not think that his difficulties in interpersonal relationships nor the possibility that he may occasionally have minor outburst of anger are a sufficient basis for holding that he is not fit-or suitable to continue his work as a Residential Counsellor. We view Dr. Ben-Aron's recommendation that Morke seriously consider resigning from his work as a Residential Counsellor to be no more than a recommendation based entirely upon his stated difficulties in getting along with some of the co-workers at the Centre and not as a finding or conclusion that he is not reasonably fit to perform the majority of the duties of a Residential Counsellor. 1 i, .’ 2,: - - 22 - There is some evidence before us that Morke has periodically encountered difficulty in working with other members of the staff. The, reasons for this are amply and well set out in Dr. Ben-Aron's reports. However, i,t must be said that his conduct in this respect has never been the subject of discipline nor has his approach to the residents been called into question. In these circumstances and bearing in mind that he has never been either counselled or warned, we think that the Employer's decision to assign him from the classification of Residential Counsellor II to Building Cleaner 2'cannot be supported. In this respect it is our view that no sufficient reasons of health exist which either did or would entitle, the Employer to make such an assignment by way of demotion. Even giving 'the word "health" a broad and expansive interpretation, having regard to its purpose in both Articles 5.6 and 51.9 of the collective agreement, we do not think that there were "reasons of health" which could reasonably support the assignment. In our opinion,. where the Employer attempts to act on the basis ofl,-"reasons of health" and makes a direction requiring an employee to submit to a medical. examination, there must be an examination which is conducted by .a person who is licenced to practice medicine whose opinions and conclusions justify that there are reasons of health which warrant the assignment. We are i >‘- - - 23 - not to be taken as suggesting that a medical practitioner cannot rely, in part, on an assessment made by a qualified registered psychologist. What we do say is that there must be a medical examination followed by an opinion by a person licenced to practice medicine that supports the conclusion that reasons of health ekist' which require such an assignment. We emphasize that Dr. Hugh Chambers did nothing whatever in this case except simply adopt the opinion of Dr. Sheldon Geller and failed to direct any independent medical examination. Even if the Employer, contrary to our view, was entitled to rely exclusively upon the opinion of Dr. Geller, we much prefer the opinion of Dr. Ben-Aron, an experienced and impressive medical practitioner who specializes in psychiatry, which is supported by that of Dr. D. Glick and Dr. H. Rochman. In this connection it is appropria~te for us to state .thaf we had the opportunity not only of reviewing the respective reports of all of the above named doctors but we also had the benefit of hearing the 'viva vote' evidence of Dr. Geller and Dr. Be.n-Aron. For these reasons we have reached the conclusion that the assignment of Daniel Morke from the classification of Residential Counsellor II to that of- Building Cleaner ~2 at the Huronia Regional Centre pursuant to Article 5.6 of the collective agreement "for reasons of health" as set out in the letter of June 18, 1986 from the Centre's Administrator, -mu~st be set aside. - 24 - We declare that he is and has since June 18, 1986 been an employee in the classification of Residential Counsellor II and the Employer is hereby directed to forthwith~ re-assign him to the duties of this classification at the Centre. DATED at Toronto this 1st day of September, 1988. c. JOHN BRUNNER, VICE CHAIRMAN