HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1327.Meiller.88-11-02netwren:
IN THE MATTER OF AN AKBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEU (Meiller)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Before:
K.J. Delisle
J.! Solberg
P. Camp
Vice-Chairp~erson
Member
hember~
For the Grievor:
B. Hanson
Counsel
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Employer:
Mary V. quick
Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Elinistry of Health
Grievor
Employer
Hearing: February 10, 1988
111,
DECISION
The grievor complains that she was unjustly disciplined by a
letter of reprimand (Exhibit 7) and asks that the same be removed
from her file.
Deanna Grace Zerebecki is the Regional Manager for Emergency
Health Services for Southwestern Ontario. There were four
employees in the Regional Office in London. Also in the same
building was the dispatch office for the London Central Ambulance
Service. Behind the building are two parking spots reserved for
the Regional Office. There are other parking spaces available
for employees in an area five minutes walk away. Ms. Zerebecki
testified that she had been quite loose about the use of the two
parking spots but that since she travelled a good deal she would
frequently be inconvenienced by being unable to park her own car.
She changed the rules and directed that others could only park
there on evenings and week-ends. Still she found herself
frequently blocked in, sometimes by ambulance vehicles. In early
1986 Ms.
Zerebecki directed that there would be no parking in
either of the spots, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, save and
except for Ministry vehicles. She advised her own staff verbally
and by memo dated December 30, 1986 (Exhibit 3), notified her
subordinate Glen Miller, Manager, London Central Ambulance
Communications Centre, that he should advise his staff not to
park there.
The grievor is a clerk-stenographer in the Regional Office.
She had been counselled by Ms. Zerebecki about parking in these
spots contrary to her instructions. On February 16, 1987 Ms.
2
Zerebecki spoke to the grievor again and the grievor allowed that
she knew what the rule was but complained that the rule didn't
make sense. On February 18 the grievor wrote a memo to Ms.
Zerebecki (Exhibit 4) complaining about the rule and how she was
treated. On February 27 Ms. Zerebecki wrote a lengthy memo to
the grievor, with attachments, attempting to explain the policy
on parking.
In March, 1987, Ms. Zerebecki went on two weeks vacation.
During that time she parked her Ministry vehicle at home. Prior
to leaving. on holidays she spoke with her assistant manager, Jon
Hambides, and instructed him to monitor the .parking. On her
return from holidays she asked whether anyone had improperly
parked and he reluctantly advised that the grievor had. He was
requested to submit an incident report Andy did so (Exhibit 6).
Ms.
Zerebecki spoke with the grievor who'admitted parking in the
spot while she was away but again complained that she couldn't
see "what the big deal was." The letter of reprimand followed.on
April 21, 1987.
Counsel for the Ministry argues that the evidence shows an
order was given, the order was clearly communicated and the
employee refused to comply and therefore a clear case of
insubordination has been made out. Counsel argues that the
penalty imposed is the most minor in nature, the employer has
established just cause and the grievance ought to be dismissed.
Such might be the appropriate disposition if it were not for the
fact that the Grievor was misled.
cf - .,
I
3
Jon Hambides testified that during Ms. Zerebecki's absence
he counselled the grievor, reminding her that Ms. Zerebecki
didn't want her parking in the spot. He never told her she could
park there but "1 didn't ask her to move the car...1 wasn't
surprised to see her parked there.. I thought Ms. Zerebecki was
being unreasonable . ..I didn't care if people parked there as long
as there was no interference. People in the office knew of my
feelings toward this."
Glen Miller testified that he passed on Ms. Zerebecki's
instructions to his dispatchers but he took no steps to enforce
the same until August, 1987 when it became clear that he would be
disciplined if he didn't. "I didn't think it was a reasonable
instruction and though I reported to her I disregarded the
instruction." Miller testified that when Ms. Zerebecki was on
vacation he too parked in the prohibited spot.
The grievor testified that she understood from her
supervisor Jon Hambides that it was all right to park in Ms.
Zerebecki's absence. She identified nine other people who parked
in Ms. Zerebecki's absence.
We do not need to consider the reasonableness of the rule.
We also observe that the rule was consistently applied by Ms.
Zerebecki. But the policy was certainly not consistently applied
in her absence. Both the Assistant Manager of the Regional
Office and the Manager of Dispatch, because of their view
regarding the reasonableness of the instruction, frustrated that
f . I.
4
instruction by sending contrary messages to the grievor. Those
contrary messages, negative fault in the grievor and the
discipline of the employer was accordingly unjust. The grievance
is allowed and the written reprimand ordered removed from the
grievor's file.
Dated ate Kingston thir 2nd
day of November 19&8.
L-1 R.J. Delisle, Vice-chairperson
J. Solberg, Member
/ +- P. Camp, Member