Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-1678.Stpicki.93-04-22; ONTAR, ! ,” EMPLOY& DE‘A CO”RONNE ! CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL’ONTARIO GRIEVANCE CPMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS BETWEEN IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARU CUPE (Stpicki) Grievor and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Workers' Compensation Board) Employer BEFORE : E. Marszewski Vice-Chairperson P. Klym Member M. O'Toole Member FOR THE B. Toop Gw National Representative Canadian Union of public Employees FOR TEE EMPLOYER M. Failes Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers, & SOliCitOrS HEARING: February 21, 1992 March 9, 1992 This matter arises from the grievance of Mike Stpicki, filed October 17, 1990, which alleged that on October 10, 1990 he was unjustly suspended for three days without pay contrary to Article 3-6 of the Collective Agreement and Section 18 of the Crown Rmolovees' Collective Barsainino Act. Moreover, the Grievor objected to the Employer's reliance upon a prior half-day suspension of June 6, 1990. The Grievor sought full compensation for loss of income and benefits, a removal of the suspensions from his record, along with an apology to be forwarded to all concerned. The Grievor, a Remedial Gymnast, was a 21 year employee at the Assessment and Rehabilitation Facility of the Downsview Rehabilitation Centre. The patients of the Facility were descr,ibed as either .patients of last resort for treatment and therapy or patients whose injuries were so severe that they posed a special rehabilitation challenge. Cm October 3, 1990, the Grievor' was assigned to be the gym therapist for each of Joann Demers and Barry Machulla. Both Demers and Machulla testified that during their respective assessment interviews with the Grievor, the latter made inappropriate comments which upset them and caused each of them to complain to the Patient Liaison Officer. Demers was first interviewed by the Grievor on October 3, 1990. She testified that she told the Grievor about her back . -2- injury which had required surgery. In fact, her back seemed to require further, follow-up surgery. According to Demers, the Grievor suggested that her Doctor probably wanted to make money on her back, making the 'money' sign by running his thumb and index fingers against each other. Demers apparently told the Grievor that she could not believe that her Doctor would have done such a thing. In her view, the Grievor had acted unprofessionally. She felt "put down". After the interview, she refused to have the Grievor as her Gym therapist. Demers was very dissatisfied with her stay at the Downsview Rehabilitation Centre. She had travelled from Timmins to the Centre for therapy, looking for help with her back injury and for improvement of her condition. She was in pain ,,,,, and on medication during her stay there but she did not receive the help that she had expected. She was not assigned to another therapy program until about three days before her departure from Downsview. Demers' testimony remained unshaken during cross- examination. Upon the conclusion of his interview with Demers, the Grievor met with his next appointment, Machulla, who had been sitting within earshot, about 20 feet away. Machulla testified that he had been admitted at the Downsview Rehabilitation Centre on October 2, 1990 for therapy to his back and leg.' As he waited for his own meeting with the Grievor, he overheard the Grievor tell Demers that her Doctor had only operated on her for the sake of making money, that she should have seen another Doctor. Machulla -3- testified that he then observed the Grievor making the 'money' sign with his hand and after that he did not want to~listen to any more of the conversation between the Grievor and Demers. However, he observed her face after her meeting with the Grievor and he said that she looked "really down" and "her face looked like it had dropped about 4" to 5". According to Machulla, during his meeting with the Grievor, Machulla understood the latter to have said that he, Machulla, was at the Rehabilitation Centre at taxpayers' expense and that he was there for a~"free ride". Machulla testified that. he had felt "degraded and down II and thought that the Grievor had been unprofessional. However,' he did not let the Grievor know that he took exception to the Grievor's statements. The Grievor testified that when confronted with the allegations of both Demers and Machulla, he‘was in shock. Neither patient had made any objections at the time, no one had consulted with him later and he felt that his basic rights had been vioalted. The Grievor's recollection of the two interviews was quite different. The Grievor described his interview with Demers. He had introduced himself, his core functions and his role at the centre. He reviewed the Back Assessment form and all its categories, he explained the procedure at the centre. He asked questions about Demers' pain and about the medications ~which had -4- been prescribed and taken. He already knew Demers' history, namely, that. she had -been on WCB since 1975, that she had not worked for three years, that she had been at the Centre on one previousoccasion. He found no major problem with her physical. I signs and knew that her back surgery had been successful. He ! recommended that she go on a conditioning program including both gym and pool exercises. The Grievor filled out the Back Assessment form in which he stated that his \general impression' of Demers was 8Vpositive18. Despite the "positive" notation on the Back Assessment form, the Grievor asserted throughout his testimony that Demers had maintained a negative attitude during her assessment interview with him. He testified that she refused to accept his recommendation to undertake a light gym/conditioning program on the basis that if she was well enough to exercise in then gym she did not need back surgery. The Grievor testified that he responded by stating that there were many reasons why Doctors operate and stressed that the decision to undertake further surgery also required her consent. He added that the Doctor "has his own business to look after and you have your own business to look after." The Grievor did not recall making any signs with his hands. In his view, Demers had calmed down by the time their interview came to an end. However, she never came back to see him. The Grievor then testified that he followed the same -5- pattern during his interview with Machulla. According to the Grievor, Machulla's first questions were "How long am I going to be here?", and , "What am I here for?". The Grievor stated that Machulla was "rather irritated" and wanted to be discharged. At first, the Grievor prescribed both a gym and a pool program. However, upon hearing some reasons which he thought might be valid against the pool program, the Grievor just assigned a light gym program for Machulla. According to the Grievor, Machulla appeared to be somewhat pacified and became quite friendly. They then discussed retraining programs. Machulla also apparently asked the Grievor about the cost of transportation to return home to Niagara Falls. When the Grievor was asked whether he had ever said anything to Machulla about a free ride, the Grievor replied that the only time that he used the word "ride" was when he spoke about the transportation issue. Kenneth Whittaker, another remedial gymnast who was also doing assessments on October 3, 1990 testified that later in the afternoon of the day in question, he approached the Grievor to find out what had happened that morning. His attention had been caught by witnessing some of the exchanges between the Grievor and each of Demers and Machulla. According to Whittaker, it was very unusual to have two such incidents occur in one morning. Generally, there might only be one such incident in a week. The Grievor asked Whittaker to recall whe,ther he had overheard any of the Grievor's conversations with Demers and Machulla. Whittaker overheard some c , . -6- of the conversations and offered to help the Grievor. Whittaker testified that on October 3, 1990, he had finished his interviews before ten in the morning. He was just taking notes about the patients that he had seen when he overheard some of the conversations which were taking place between the Grievor and his patients. He was seated about seven to ten feet from the Grievor, whom he.could see through a glass partition. Whittaker was able to see the Grievor from the waist up. He also saw Demers and overheard some of her conversation with the Grievor. Whittaker testified that Demers was quite concerned with her upcoming back surgery and despite the Grievor's efforts to calm her fears she apparently repeated the question of why she had to have back surgery again since it did not help her the last time she had it. The question was asked more than two or three times and she looked tearful when she stood up to leave, although Whittaker did not hear her crying. According to Whittaker, the Grievor did not sound upset. Moreover, Whittaker testified that he did not hear any of the negative comments or gestures which Demers maintained that the Grievor had made. Whittaker then observed Machulla come out from behind the panel and approach the Grievor bellowing, so that everyone could hear: "how long am I going to have to be here?" to which the Grievor was heard to reply: "two to three weeks". Beyond that, Whittaker did not hear any of the negative remarks which Machulla -7- had alleged that the Grievor made. It was Whittaker's view that, generally, about one WCB Rehabilitation Centre patient per week would be upset in the way that either Demers or Machulla were upset. He attributed the stress of patients at the WCB Rehabilitation Centre to the strange surroundings, being away from family and home, as well as to the fact that they were told to go from one person to another at the Centre, adding that the experience could be frightening. Machulla testified that when he saw Demers later on October 3, the day of the interviews, he told Demers that he had overheard the remarks which the Grievor had made to her. He also related to her the remarks made by the Grievor to himself. Later that day, Demers attended a general meeting of all patients,,staff, the administrator and supervisor. It was unclear whether Machulla also attended the meeting. Demers took the opportunity to complain about her experience with the Grievor to the Patient Liaison Officer, Mr. Brian McCarthy. Machulla filed his complaint with McCarthy the next morning. He also changed his therapist and testified that he had no further problems with his new therapist. McCarthy, who had been at the WCB since 1980, saw his role as an advocate for patients who encountered problems at the Centre. Generally, unless he felt inclined to do so, he did not -8- speak to the individuals about whom the complaints were made. Rather, he saw his role strictly as one of discussing the issues with the patients and contacting or reporting to the supervisors of the concerned areas. The supervisors then met with the employees about whom the complaints were made. In this case, he did not recall attending a meeting which was held to discuss the complaints of Demers and Machulla. As a result of the complaints filed with him by Demers and Machulla, McCarthy prepared the following two Action Request Forms, dated October 4, 1990, relating each of the two complaints made against the Grievor: ,,,.. This patient [Demers] came into my office on October 4, 1990 to advise that she has had a problem communicating with her therapist, M. Stpicki. While being assessed by him on Ott 3, she told him about her back surgery of Feb 89 and that she may require further surgery in the future. She advised him that she was to see he specialist again in Feb 91 (his name is Dr. Xostiuk). Mr. Stpicki then told the patient that her doctor probably only operated on her for money as he is greedy. She told him that she disagreed. This comment has made her very upset. . . . . . This patient [Machulla] came into my office on October 4/90, to advise that he is having difficulty communicating with the RG therapist, M. Stpicki. While being assessed on Ott 3, M. Stpicki told him that he would be returning to work in two weeks and that he was only here for a free ride. He also told the patient that he felt he could do more that what he was doing. The patient said he is upset because he feels degraded. On October 5, the Grievor had a brief conversation with Mrs. Coombs, the Supervisor of the Remedial Gym. However, the Grievor did not consider that meeting to have been an interview -9- with respect to the complaints that had been made against him. Coombs merely read the two complaints .to the Grievor but did not elaborate. The Grievor did not recall making some of the statements which were being attributed to him, such as Demers' allegation that the Grievor had said that her Doctor was greedy. Then, on October 10, 1990, th,e Grievor received the following disciplinary letter from Jayne Coombs: This letter confirms our discussion on Friday October 5, 1990, and Tuesday October 9, 1990, and the action taken as a result of these discussions. You will recall that I received two Action Request Forms from Mr. Brian McCarthy, Patient Liaison Officer, asking for comments on two separate patient complaints thathe had received. One patient Mrs. Joanne Demers, stated that you told her during her assessment period, on October 4, 1990, that "her doctor only operated on her for the money, as he was greedy". The other complaint was from Mr. Barry Machulla, who states that you told him, on October 4, 1990, "he was only here for a free ride". When I discussed these comments with you in the presence of Mr. Peter Shaw, Clinical Coordinator, Remedial Gym, you stated that you did not in fact make any of these.comments. However, you did state that "our job was to tell patients to go back to work".~ I disagreed with you. Further I reminded you that we are here to assess and treat patients'. When I asked you why you continued to work here you stated that "1 have worked here for twenty years and don't care about the Centre anyway.". On October 9, 1990, I met with Mrs. Joanne Demers, and Mr. Barry Machulla, and Mr. Brian McCarthy, in the Patient Liaison office. Mr. D. M. Russell, Manager, Paramedical Services, was also present. Both patients repeated their complaints and expressed the fact the they felt humiliated and degraded by your initial interview, and felt that your attitude was uncalled for. Mr. Machulla also stated that he overheard you telling Mrs. Demers that "her doctor was taking her for her money". I am extremely concerned about your inappropriate conduct and your failure to act in a professional manner. Your comments to Mrs. Demers and Mr. Machulla were -lO- totally unacceptable, insensitive and unprofessional. Further, they were contrary to the philosophy of the Centre and the Remedial Gym Section. Again I remind you that each injured worker is to be treated with dignity and respect. Your comments showed a complete disregard for the feelings of the patients and the philosophy of our Section. Such inappropriate behaviour could result in irreparable damage to the relationships with our patients and to the credibility and professional standards maintained within our Section. You will recall receiving a decision making leave without pay on June 6, 1990 for insubordination, and inappropriate conduct. Your comments to Mrs. Demers, and Mr. Machulla reflect a continuing inability to function professionally and to treat people with common courtesy and respect. Your attitude and inappropriate conduct places in serious question your suitability to work in this Section. To impress upon you the seriousness of this matter, and your professional standards, you are placed on a decision making leave without pay effective immediately, Wednesday October 10, 1990. You are to remain off work without pay continuously until Monday October 15, 1990. During this leave you are requested to consider carefully whether you are prepared to conduct yourself in a professional manner, demonstrating the common courtesy and respect expected of all our staff. Please understand that if you plan to continue your employment as a remedial exercise therapist at the Centre, it is imperative that you take immediate and necessary measures to meet these fundamental levels of professional care and conduct. You are to report to the office of Mr. D. M. Russell, Manager, Paramedical Services on Monday, October 15, 1990, at 8:15 a.m., to discuss you decision concerning your future conduct, performance and continued employment. I am confident that your are capable of performing at an acceptable level, in accordance with the normal and professional standards expected of the staff in our Section. Please understand however, that this is an extremely se,rious matter, and any reoccurrence of this type of conduct will result,in serious corrective action. This action will be in the form of a lengthy decision making leave without pay, of termination of your employment. I hope that you take the appropriate steps to avoid the escalation of this matter. The sixth paragraph of the above letter contained a reference to the Grievor's previous discipline letter dated June 6, i,, t -11- 1990. That letter read as follows: This letter confirms our discussion on Wednesday, June 6, 1990 and the action taken as a result of those discussions. You will recall that Ms. Dianne Timgren, your Co- ordiator, reviewed your break and lunch schedule with you on Tuesday, June 5, 1990. At that time she reconfirmed that your morning break period would commence at lo:40 AM daily. At approximately 9:40 AM on june 6, 1990, you were observed taking an unscheduled break in the staff room. At that time I requested that you report to my office. Upon entering my office and in the presence of the Co- ordinator, Diane Timgren, you stated, "This is fuckin harassment". You continued to shout at Ms. Timgren and myself. You pointed at each of us and repeated, "you are a pig". At that point, I arranged for Mr. J. Boyce, Manager, Human Resources and Finance to join us. Upon his arrival, the conversations were considerably businesslike. Your conduct in my office prior to the arrival of Mr. Boyce~was rude; unprofessional and insubordinate. There was no cause for your outburst, for your use of profanity and for the derogatory remarks directed to Ms. Timgren and myself. This type of conduct is inexcusable and will not be tolerated. We met' with you later in the day after having considered your behaviour. You were advised that as a result of the misconduct and insubordination, you were being removed from the job. You were placed on a decision-making leave without pay for half a day on June 6, 1990. You were instructed to use this time to consider whether you. are prepared .to work within the normal operating guidelines established for the Remedial Gym staff. In addition, you must decide whether you are prepared to act in a professional and businesslike manner demonstrating common courtesy towards your peers, the patients and the Centre's management staff. You were instructed to report to my office at 8:15 AM on Thursday, June 7, 1990 to discuss your decision regarding your future conduct and performance. I am confident that you are capable of performing at an acceptable level, in accordance with the normal and professional standards expected of the staff in our Section. Please understand however, that this is an extremely serious matter, and any reoccurrence of this type of conduct will result in serious corrective action. This action will be in the form of a lengthy decision making -12- leave without pay, of termination of your employment. I hope that you take the appropriate steps to avoid the escalation of this matter. The Grievor testified that he was in shock with respect to the October 10, 1990 letter from Coombs. He testified that he did not recall making the 'money' sign with his fingers. He also testified that he did not recall telling Machulla that he was there for a "free ride". Moreover, he maintained that the expression "free ride" was not one that he would normally use. Rather he had spoken to Machulla with respect to making travel arrangements for Machulla back home. It was submitted by Counsel on behalf of the Employer that as a general principle, managerial discretion ought not to be interfered with and the Employer's judgment ought not to be second guessed unless the penalty was manifestly unjust. It was argued that this Employer had sufficient basis in fact to suspend the Grievor in view of the allegations of Demers and Machulla. In the alternative, it was submitted that if the evidence of the events, including the basis for the suspension, were to be analyzed in detail, it would be concluded that the Grievor's suspension was warranted. Moreover, upon an evaluation of the credibility of the Grievor vis a vis the credibility of Demers and Machulla, the evidence of the patients was to be preferred over the Grievor. For example, the Grievor's oral testimony,~ which stressed that Demers’ attitude had been,negative throughout the interview, contradicted ! c -13- the Grievor's own statement on the Assessment Form which evaluated Demers' attitude as positive. Counsel argued that the discrepancies within the evidence of Machulla, such as when Demers and Machulla first spoke to one another about the events of October 3rd, to cite but an example, were minor and insignificant. Counsel for the Employer referred this Board to the awards in Re United Steelworkers. Local 2894, and Galt Metal Industries Ltd., (1971) 23 L.A.C. 33 (R.F.Egan) and Re Julius Resnick Canada Ltd. and SPlasticsand, International Leathe (1973) 3 L.A.C. (2d) 247 (D.D.Carter). The Union submitted that pursuant to Sections 18(2)(c) and 19(3) of CECBA, the Board had a discretion to change the discipline imposed upon a Grievor. It was argued that management had not provided the Grievor with an opportunity to give his side of the story. Moreover, it was submitted that the Grievor's evidence.ought to be preferred over that of Demers or Machulla due to.inconsistencies in the testimony of the patients. ,Moreover, it was submitted that they might have misunderstood the Grievor's remarks due to the fact that they were both under stress and anxious about their own conditions. In the first instance, the Board finds it necessary to comment upon the Grievor's credibility. Based upon our assessment of the witnesses1 evidence, wherever there are discrepancies between the evidence of Demers and Machulla, on the one hand, and ( ( -14- the evidence of the Grievor on the other hand, we prefer the evidence of the patients to that of the Grievor. The point of commencement lies with the Grievor's own evaluation ~of Demers at the time of the assessment interview of October 3, when the Grievor concluded that Demers' attitude was "positive". As a matter of basic common sense, it would seem that the Grievor's evaluation on October 3rd, 1990, of Demers' attitude during their meeting that same day, should be given more weight than the Grievor's opinion, some sixteen months later during his testimony at this hearing. Whether the Gr~ievor's recollectionwas merely faulty or whether it was selectively inaccurate is, for the purposes of this inquiry, irrelevant. What is significant is that on October 3, 1990, before the Grievor discovered that Demers had complained about him, he was of the view that she had a positive attitude. We accept the Grievor's evaluation of Demers' attitude as positive. Pr,oceeding from"that finding, we must then also conclude that the Grievor's evidence at this hearing, based upon his . recollection of the events in question, that Demers' attitude was negative, must be faulty. If so, there is little ground to question or discredit Demers' evidence with respect to the Grievor's remarks to her. At most, it might be thought that Demers misunderstood his remarks. However, by the Grievor's own ev.idence, he suggested'to her that there are many reasons why a -15- surgeon might operate upon a patient, money being one of them. We accept that Demers was very anxious during her interview with the Grievor. We also accept that she was very concerned about the condition of her back. However, in our view, neither Demers' anxiety now her concern about her back affected her ability to recall the inappropriate comments of the Grievor. The Grievor's remarks, even according to his own evidence, were at the very least injudicious. The last thing that he should have suggested to Demers, even as a hypothetical, was that some doctors (potentially her own) might operate on a patient in order to make money. Moreover, in this context, we accept Demers'.evidence, corroborated by Machulla, that the Grievor made the money sign to her with his fingers. It is possible that the Grievor made such a gesture inadvertently, as he told Demers that there were many reasons why a Doctor would operate upon a patient. In any event, we find that the gesture was inappropriate. Demers also testified that she felt "put down" by the Grievor. It is also possible that the Grievor's overall demeanour and manner of speaking gave Demers the impression that the Grievor felt himself to be superior to her. While we accept Demers' evidence that she felt put down during her interview with the Grievor, we are unable to find that the Grievor intended to "put her down" during their interview. The task of evaluating Machulla's evidence is more I -16- complex than thatof evaluating Demers' evidence, because Machulla observed a problem between Demers and the Grievor and anticipated conflict between himself and the Grievor. To some extent, Machulla must have provoked a negative reaction on the Grievor's part because, and we so find, he approached the Grievor aggressively, demanding to know "what am I here for?.". For this reason, it is hard to assess and separate the extent to which the Grievor reacted to such aggression and the extent to which the Grievor provoked the aggression. Machulla testified that the Grievor insulted him by telling him that he was just there for a "free ride". The Grievor testified that he had been asking Machulla about the means of transportation he would use to return to his 'home in Niagara Falls. Moreover, the Grievor stated that the expression "free ride" was not one that he would normally use. On balance, we find it more likely that the Grievor did ,suggest, as alleged by Machulla, that the latter was just there for a "free ride", than that the Grievor was merely inquiring whether Machulla was to get a free ride home after his stay at the centre. Moreover, a statement to the effect that you are there for a free ride is consistent with the Grievor's attitude, as reported in his Supervisor's disciplinary letter of October 10, 1990, in that the Grievor viewed that his job was to "tell patients to go back to work". It is the view of this Board that the Grievor made inappropriate comments to Demers and Machulla and therefore the Employer had just cause to discipline him. I -17- The grievance also sought to review the half-day suspension without pay imposed upon the Grievor on June 6, 1990. However, no evidence was adduced with respect to that matter. Moreover, the June, 1990 suspension was not grieved at the time. Consequently, this Board finds that it is unable to deal further with the Grievor's request that the June 1990 suspension be reviewed. The remaining question is whether the penalty of three days was appropriate in the circumstances of this case. It must be kept in- mind that the Grievor is a long-term employee with an unblemished record, except for the half-day suspension for his ,,, difficulty with his supervisor in June, 1990. However, that incident did not involve any patients of the Rehabilitation Centre. Moreover, this incident is the first such incident between the Grievor and patients. There was no suggestion in the evidence that the Grievor had ever been taken to task or warned for inappropriate dealings with patients. There was also no evidence to suggest that the Employer had established or published any guidelines for the behaviour of its employees vis a vis its patients. In the 'circumstances, on the basis of all of the evidence adduced in this case, and on the basis of the submissions of both parties, this Board has determined that given the Grievor's long and essentially unblemished record of employment with this employer, a three-day suspension is excessive in all of the circumstances of this case. This Board therefore exercises its discretion to reduce the -18- 'suspension to one day and directs the employer to compensate the Grievor for any wages or benefits lost. We remain seized of this matter for the purpose of resolving any difficulties with the implementation of this award. DATED,at Toronto this 22nd day of Apri 1 I ~ , 1993. ___-_-_-_-_------------------------ Eva E. Marszewski - Vice-Chair ,; "I Partially Dissent'l(partial.dissent --------------_---------------------- attacfit? M. O'Toole - Member d: i ( . PARTIAL DISSENT RE: 1678/91 CUPE (Stpicki) and the Crown in Right of Ontario (Workers' Compensation Board) I concur in the finding of the majority that the grievor's comments were inappropriate and thus justified discipline. However, I must dissent from their decision to mitigate the penalty imposed by the employer. The majority find that mitigation is warranted on the following grounds: a) the grievor's long record of service has only one disciplinary blemish and it did not involve patients: b) the incident in question is the first-involving patients; c) the grievor has not been previously warned for inappropriate dealings with patients; d) the employer has not published guidelines for the behaviour of employees vis a vis patients. In my opinion the above grounds, if properly weighed in the context of all the evidence, fail to make out a case'for mitigation. While the grievor does have a long record of service, it is punctuated by a significant incident of misconduct. While that incident involved a supervisor rather than patients, it is not thereby completely distinguishable from the incident in question. The essential nature of the misconduct in both instances was a lack of courtesy and respect. The fact the misconduct in each instance was directed against persons.of differing status is a somewhat artificial distinction. 'Surely, all persons dealing with a health professional, such as the grievor, are entitled to be treated with courtesy and respect. Thus the failure to do so in relation to anyone is a breach of the same standard of professional conduct. If any distinction is to be made, it is surely that the breach of that standard against a patient is a more serious matter than against a supervisor. The latter type of breach having incurred a half day suspension, it necessarily follows that the former type of breach deserves a more severe penalty. The majority find that in all the circumstances a one day suspension meets this criterion. In my opinion such a penalty is not severe enough. This is especially so in the case of the grievor, considering that in the earlier discipline letter he was specifically reminded of his duty "to act in a professional and business like manner demonstrating common courtesy towards . . . . . the patients, . .." Moreover, he was also expressly warned in said letter that "any reoccurrence of this type of conduct will result in . . . a lengthy decision making leave without pay, or termination of your employment." In my view, a one day suspension cannot be considered *tlengthy'l and is, therefore, inappropriate. It is important to note, as well, that at the hearing before this panel the grievor persisted in failing to recognise that.his L > i: -. 2 conduct on the day in question was inappropriate. This suggests that the grievor still does not fully appreciate his responsibilities as a health professional towards his patients. In all of the ,above circumstances, I find the penalty arrived at by the employer to be not unreasonable or excessive and I therefore would not interfere with it. p ‘3 Og+3ff~ . F. O'Toole, Member April 21, 1993