Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0250.Ohrt.89-02-10 · ~ ONTARIO EMPLO¥~$DELA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE [. 'ON TA RIO GRIEVANCE CQMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ON'rARIO. MSQ IZ8- SUITE2100 TEI. EPHONE/T~L~PHONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ON TARIO) M5(3 lZ8 * BUREAU 2100 (416) 698.0688 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE SRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Ohrt) - and - The Crown Jn Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) Employer r~[~~'':;~'~.~ Before: N.V . Dlssanayake. Vice-Chairperson · . T. Browe$-Bugden Member ' M, O'Toole Member For the Grievor: A. Ryder, Counsel Gowl~ng & Henderson For the Employer: M,B. Quick Legal Se,:~;~ces Branch Hearings: Septemb¢-? 12, 1gan DECISION This grievance relates to the grJevor's suspension from work on March S0, 1988 and his $,lbsequent discharge on April 6, 398~. The dJ$chaT~e was e~fec~ed by letter dated April 6, 1988 signed by Mr. J.T. Mercer, Administrator of the London Psychiatric Hospital. The Employer's disciplinary action arose out of the alleged conduct of the gr~evor during an incident that occurred on March BO, 19880 on Ward T-! of the London Psychiatric Hospital, where the or~evor was employed as a Registered Nursing Assistant. Ward T-I housed psych~a~rfc patients, some of whom had a propensity for violence. The g_~levor, commenced employment at the London Psychiatric Hospital ~n October, 1987. On March 30, 1988, he worked a 10:00 a.m. to 10:O0 p,m. shift. Al'ound 7:45 that evening a male patient MI'. Randy B_~ooks ("RB") became hostile towards the s.taff. RB was about $5 years old, was ext.~emely stI'ong]y and had violent tendenc_tes, The ch.a_~-ge nu_~se on the wa_~d, Ms. Dalla Costa, decided that RB sho~lld be confined to a seclusion moom fo_~ his own safe~y and the safety of the s~aff, RB did no~ co-opera~e with the staff's ?equest to ...m..-oceed to the sec]us/on room and indeed became even more hostile. A n~_~m?,~? of emp]oyees including the grJevor, became ]~vo]~.;ed ~.~ re~t~/,n~g n... 2 announced oger the p.a. system calling ail ava~]ab]e staff for assistance.. The staff managed to get the si~uation under con,roi, RB was administered a tranquilizer d~ug to calm him down, and was escorted to the seclusion room. The Employer maintains that d%~rJng ~h.-;s incident,which lasted about ]5 minutes., the grievor was "guilty of patient abuse". Speciflca]l¥, it is the .. Employer's position tha~ ~he G~ievo~ was disciplined fo~ .~?~.~:,: k~ck~n~ .RB durin~ the s~u~ie. The g~ievor and the -':' union deny tha~ allegation, l~ i~ ~heir position that "' while ~he Grievor ~sed ~orce to restrain RB, he did no~ do anything with an intention to injure, Specifically it ~s contended that while ~he gr]e~ placed h~s foot on RB a numbe~ of times while RB was lying on th~ floo~, ...:...:. .... tha~ was necessary to keep RB down. The ':-."' vehemently denies tha~ he kicked RB at any time. While the Board heard substantial evidence from the Employer wi~nesses relating to the. grievor'$ conduct during the incident, the EmpJoyer made ~t clear that the only ~eason for the discipline was the alleged kicking of the patient by the grJevor. The Employer led evidence through five employees and the Nursing OoordJnator, Ms. Nora ChrJstensen. Ns. Shawn Rielly, a R.N.A., was oN duty on wa~d T~i at the t~me of the ~nc~de~t, w~th the charge nurse Ms. DaiWa Cost~, Ms, Liz Me,flit and the gri~vor. She testifie~ that she saw the gr~evor "p~nch Aldwyn Franklyn in the g~oin a~ea": that after RB was on the floor she saw the gr~evor "strikin~ in the patient's spine area": that the grJevor, wh~Ie in a half standing position k~cked the patient ~n the ~ace once and then k~cked h~m again ~n the h~.p a~ea. On her account the kick took place Mr, Franklyn had left the room after being ~n~ured, She also testified that the gr~evor was kneeling on RB's chest w~th the full body weight on the patlent. Ms. Rellly admitted under cross-examination that due to something that had occurred prior to March ~0, 1988, she had developed a "profound disl~ke!' for the M.r. A]dwyn Frankdyn ks a psyc. h~atrJc NUrsdng Assistant. ~{e worked on au e.~.jacent we. rd. but was called .~D by ~$. Re~]]y to ward T-~ for a~sJstance ~n con~rmed that he was b~t ~n the patient moved, Mr. Ohrt tried to stand and accidentally got his elbow in the groin". Mr, Franklyn then saw the grlevor's foot "motion back and forward and it made contact with the patient's facJ. al area." He said that TO him it "looked like a k~ck". He was certain that at the time of the kick Ms, Reilly was no~ In the room. Mr. Frank]yn's testimony was that when the grJevor knelt on RB he did that only with one knee, and that the othe? knee was on ~he floor so that the grJevor's f~ll body weight was not on the patient. :}!~ ~r, David Gibson, a Psychiatric Nursing Assistant ~ working o~ an adjoinin~ ward responded to the 711. He test~fled That he saw "a foot make connection w~th The patient's head.and the head snap back". Then he looked up and saw Jt was the grJevor's foo~. He saw no othe~ kicks. Ms. Oorlnne Wilson, a RNA, was also on an adJoinln~ ward and responded ~o the 711, She testified ~h~t she observed the gr~evo~ ~n a cmouch]ng posJtlon k~cking RB on the back of the ribs three ti~es, She also ~aw the G~]evor kneeling on the patient's back with 'full body weight on the patient, She testified that then the grjevor "reached ove~, grabbed the bed and banged the patient's head hit the meta.] ~rame that holds up the at the same time as Mr. Gibson, she did not see a kick to the patient's head. · 'i.>! M~. l, lz ~err~tt, a psychiatric Nursing A~stan~ testified that she saw the G~levor "elbow Mr, Franklyn ]n the groin" Then she saw the gr~evor standing over RB who was lying on the floor, and kicking him twice on the side of the head. Ms. Merr]tt denied that'she had any animosity towards the grievor, but admitted that .. despite working together, he was not a friend, On the .i}!ii~i other hand, she was a friend of Mr. Franklyn and Ms. Ms. Nora Chrtstensen, 'the Nursing Coordinator, was the only member of management who testified, She was no~ present durin~ the alleged ~ncldent. It was her · . evidence that the staff members who testified at the " hearing, volunteered the Information to her about the ~rlevor's alleged misconduct. She specifically emphasised that she did not "go investigating" but simply re,led on information voluntarily brought to her a~tentlon. She was first approached by M~. Franklyn shortly after RB had been placed in seclusion. Ne her that he had a concern about something that happened. when asked what his concerD w~s, Mr. Franklyn told Ms. hospital emn~oyee~ bad been called to assr. st iD the Griever rushed his grip on RB, that the griever's actions resulted in RB becoming more upset, and that a struggle resulted necessitating the calling of a 711. That was the extent of ~r. F~anklyn', complaint at the tlme and no kick/kicks were mentioned. Ms, Ghristensen then proceeded to Ward P-1 where Mr. Mark wakefield worked. ~r, Wakef~.eld had also attended at the scene to a,s~st. Ms, Chrlstensen testified that she asked him if he had been injured and whether "there wa, anythln~ he wanted to tell me". She was told "everything was OK". She then went to Ward R- ], and found Ms. Oo~rlnne w~Ison ¢~¥]n~. On Inquiry, Ms, Wilson told he~ that she was upset because she had seen a ,~aff member k~ck a patient. Ms. Gh~s~ensen then called M~. Lance Wlllfams in Ward T-~ and asked him to come over. It was Ms. Chrlstensen's evidence upon inquiry Mr. Williams told her that he had seen .the griever kick RB. Ms. Chrlstensen called Mr. Mercer, the Hospital Administrator, and informed' him of what she had bee~ told. He instructed her to immediately issue a letter of suspension to the U~J. evor. ~he called the physician, Dr. ]~n]], and Yequested aD ~am~natJor~ of the patient. The Doctor's reDo~t notes that she was called 7 during a struggle during which staff were attempting to restrain patient", The only injuries noted in the Doctor's report are'a swelling of scalp 2.5 centimeters on left side of .scalp and a contusion just above the r~ght eye, Her conclusions a~e: "sustained contusions to head during struggle, No neurologic sequelae apparent at this time," She p~esc~bed "hourly checks to.ascertain level of consciousness and monitor pupils", Ms, Christenson returned to her office and wrote the following letter to the grievor: ,,~ffect..~ue ~mmed;atel¥ you are suspended from duty without pay until such time as an inveS~i~ation and possible hearing has been completed. It Is al]eged that you have committed patient abuse on Mr. Randy B~ooks of Ward T- 1," She sent for the gr~evo~ and handed h~m the letter. He was told ~hat the Police ~e being notified, The grlevor was asked to stay in the Nurses off]ce un~ll the PoliGe a~rived, He was also advised not to go to the wa~d, and not to Talk to any staff. When the g~ievor a~ked what the pToblem was Ms. Chvl~tensen stated that -she d~d not want to talk ~o him but ~hat he can d~scuss the matter with the police, The other employWes were a3. so ordered nor to talk zo the grjevo~. A poi'~ce ~;ffjr. e[ from the Lm,?,.fiop. ~oJjca arvJvmd ~.~( ~,r~:er~wed f, ~mrson~ who were ~eferred G~bson, Ms. WS]son and Ms. Merrltt, - the same 5 persons who testified for the Employe~. Ms. Christensen, along w~th another member of the hospital's management sat in during these interviews. In the meantime, the remained in the Nurses office fo? some thmee hours, During this time, he used'the telephone in the room and attempted to speak to Ms. Chr~stensen several times, but was advised that she was busy. He got the same response when he tried to call Mr. Mercer. After three hours,he was asked to come to a room whe?e the Police officer was waiting. The officer asked the gr~evor whether he was willing to make a statement and the g~ievor declined to do so without first speaking to a lawyer. The then left the hospital around 3:00 a,m, after being advised that a "pre-hearing" wJl] be held on April 6. The grievor was charged by the Police for assault in July and following a crimlna] t~a] in November, 1988 was acquitted of the charge. The Board notes ~hat on the Employer's own evidence, no investigation was conducted by the Employer before the discharge of the grievor. The Employer simply accepted ','he statements of the employees who said they saw the alleged kicks. Most notably, the Employer did not talk to the gr~evor at any time desp~;te the statement .';..~ the ]ette~' of suspension possible hearing" · Mo,_-e over, when the g~ievor attempted to talk to the management he was not given an opportunJ ry, The evidence aisc discloses that the five employees who testified for the Employer, and union witness Mr, WakefJe]d~ provided th'e Employer with written statements. In addition there were at least two othe?$ who made written statements, nan%ely, the charge n!lrse, ..' Ms. Daiia Costa and R.N.A., Ms, Susan Graham, both of -, whom were part~clpants ~n the attempt to ~estraln RB. Mr, Wakefield, Ms. Gosta and Ms. Graham did not mention · havin~ seen any k~cks. Ms. Chr~stensen's evidence w~th · re~ard ~o these written statements is !ess than credjble. She den~ed that she had asked any employee '~m~" fO~ a written statement. Nor was she aware that any other membe~ of management had requested such a ~ statement. In Contrast when Ms.Reilly, Mr. Franklyn, Ms. Me~ri~t and M~. Wakefield were asked how they came to write the statement, each replied with no hesitation that the written statement was provided a~ Ms. Christensen's request, There wer~ other aspects of Ms. ChrJstensen's evidence that we find to be troub]esome. As noted, she r~s~..~ fjed j~ bet e}:amJna~jr~,~-~?~-chJef t~a~i when Lance Williams came ove]i be told her ,tha,t he bad ,.h~ gytevor ~a_.~ ............ I0 confPonted w~'th a statemen~ she had made at a pre- hearing meeting on April 6, 1988, to the effect that Mr. W~llfiams told her that he did n__o~ see any k~cks, she could not provide any explanation for the contradiction. Mr, Williams was not called to testify. On the basis of the all evidence, we find that Ms. GhrJstensen did ask a number of employees to provide written statements and that she di.d. make inq~3, irle$ from a number of employee~. On her o~n evidence did not vol~lntee~ any info,matron, She ~en,t fo~ him and asked h~m wha~ he saw. she also sough~ ou~ Mr. Wakefield and asked him whethe~ he had anything ~o tell her. Aftem f~st denying that she had talked Costa about the incident, Ms, Ghrlstensen late~ admitted. tha~ she d~d speak ~o he~ and that Ms. Costa s~ated that she "saw nothing". tt ls our conclusion that the Ms, Ohrlstensen having talked to and obtaining w~ftten statements numbeF of employees concluded tha~ the grievor was "guilty" because some of the employees claimed they had seen'the grievor kick RB, I~ is probable ~ha~ the Employe~ concluded that some employees saw the kicks and others d~d not. Tha~ js not an unreasonable pos~t~on the Employer d~d not at any time befo,-e the discharg~ confl"omt the gr}~vov with the. into_~na,.ion __ ..... 1.] the employees and did not gJve him a chance to respond to the allegations, If the Employer had heard the gr~evor's side of the story, Jt would ]~kely have caused it to verify.the plausibility of the various employees' stories and to further pursue the information provided by those employees who ~eported that they did not see any Kicks. The .Employer's failure to talk to the gr~evor caused it to accept the allegations without any investigation or ve~IfJcatJon, Despite these obse_~vations, in our view the unsatisfactory investigation procedure by Itself Js not fatal, in the absence of any specif.~.c investigative procedure in the collective agreement, If on the basis of the evidence before it, the Board can conclude ~hat th® Employer in fact had Just cat, se to discharge the ._ grievor, the g~levance must fail. Needless to say, the ':":::~%~ onus is on the Employer to establish lust cause. The allegations are of a very serious nature. In a ward housing psych~atric patients ]t wl~ be 'Inevitable %hat from time to time the staff will have to deal with hostile patients? The Employer has a rJgh~ to expect that its staff members,-who are t~-ained to deal ~with ~hese kinds of s';tuat~ons, w]]l not physically abuse the patients, ~n,.~ kicking ~ pst~ent must be viewed as ~ 12 Because of the seriousness of the misconduct, the Employer must be able to produce consistent and cogent evidence to support the allegation. The Board recognizes that on March 30, ]988, a chaotic st.tuation prevailed on Ward T-1. In the circumstances, it is quite understandable that those present may not have observed every detail of the events as they unfolded, or that they may have perceived these events d~ffe~ent]¥. Thus, we are not concerned about · ~n¢onslsten¢ies that go to details such ac whether the ~:. patient was k~cked on the right o~ left s~de of the face or whether the grievor was standing o~ crouching when he k~cked. However, the Board must be sat~$fled on the basis of cogent and ~eliable evidence that the Grievo~ ~ntent~onally k~cked the patient sometime du~]nG the incident. ~aving carefully reviewed al~ of the evidence before us, we have come ~o the conclusion that the Emp]oye~ has no~ met ~ts onus. The Employer's witnesses Gave evidence about various observations of kickin~ at various times. While it is true that every person in the ~oom could not have observed every moVe of the gr~evor, ~f the BoaTd were to accep~ all of the evidence of the Employe~ wituesses, theT~e must h~ve bee~. st least six ~J ff~?-~r~ kick~ ~" r~ rJevor - ~ of difficulties with the evidence wbiah g~nera!ly a doubv on the credjbi]]~? nf the Em~]¢'~¥~? 13 We note a few e×amp]es. It was the evidence of Mr. Wakefield, which was supported by contemporaneous entries ~n the nursing notes, that he was actively involved in the struggle and that he was holding on to the patient's right arm. A number of the Employer's witnesses who were present in the room at the time den~ed hav~ng seen Mr, Wakefield (who had reported that he saw no kicks) in the 'room and insisted that there was no one at the patient's right arm. We found Mr. Wakefield to be a most credible witness. He had not known the grievor or any of the employer w~tnesses at the time of the incident, ~aving left 'the hospital's employment a'~ the time of the hearing, he had no personal interest ~n the matter. It was Mr. Wakefield's evidence tha~ at the time Ms. Merrett claims she saw a kick to the head, he was positioned over the head area and a k~ck to the head was not possible or at least tha~ he would have felt it if a k~c~ was somehow made. Further, with regard to the alleged k~ck(s) to the r~b area~ one witness saw one kick, another saw two successive kicks, and another was'certain she saw three repeated k~cks. While some witnesses saw one kick to the head, Ms. Merr]tt ~as certa~h she saw two kicks to the head. As already noted, it was Ms. Reilly's testimony that she saw the grJevor punch ~t was Mr. F~Dk]¥n'$ own ~,<d~,r~¢:e tha~ he wa~ 16 attempted to get up. Similarly, Ms. Really and Ms. Merritt both testified that the gr~evor rushed into the ~oom at a tame when Mr, F~ank]yn and Mr. Williams had good control of the situation and knocked them down to the floor along with the patient. Mr, Frank]yn's evidence was that while the grievor'$ intervention caused him to lose his Grip, he then slid to the floor, Grabbed R8 by his feet and pulled him to the floor. Franklyn testified that w~en ~e observed the kick the patient on the head, the grlevo~ was alone ~n '~ the ~oom. ~e was quite sure that Ms. Re]]l¥ was not the room at the time. ~owever,. Ms, ReIiIy's evidence was that she was only a few feet from the grlevor at the time of the kick to the head. Ms. Merrftt testified that she was standing outslde the room with Mr. Franklyn when she observed the kick to the head. Mr. ~rankIyn · dJ'd not see th~s kick. On h~s account he was in the .... room when he observed the kick, Ms, Wilson testified that she had entered the room w~h Mr, Gibson and was the~e until the patient was taken ~o secltlslon, The only kick Mr, Gibson saw .was.a k~ck to the head, Strangely, Ms. Wilson saw no kick to the head but . observed three kicks to the ~ibs. Also Ms. Wilson was the only one to testify that the g~ievor pulled the . .~'.. '~ metal bed and banged the pat'ien~'s bead, It h~s been established beyond do~.~b~ t~h~t ~,~B was tw%~e admini$~¥ed injections to calm h~m down. Ms. Wj]~:'~ testified th~ ~~Jo~ w~ ~ive~ ~ ~'. t!~ Vc,,',m :-~.~ht ~ ~ f~2~,~' ,-, M~. ReJ]]¥ and Mr, Gibson. However Ms. Re]]ly and Mr. Gibson, who testified that RB was already in control, denied tha% any medication was G~ven wh~]e the patient wa~ in the ~oom. In fact Mr. Gibson testified that he saw an Jn3ectJon being Given rafter the patient was placed in secluslon. It was established that no ~nject~on was given ~n the seclusion ~oom. The ;.~.nion ¢o',.~.n~et .implied tha,t there may h~ve been a conspiracy ~o ha_~m ~he Grievor, whe~3e~n Ms. Re~lly and he~"cliqge of f~ends" a~e makinG false allegations. The suggest]on was tha~ an allegation concocted by Retlly (who admitted to havfng a p~ofound d~slfke fo~ the gr]evo~) was being backed up by he~ f~ends. The Board need not ~nd on the basis of the evidence, cannot make a f~nd~n~ whethe~ tha~ ~n ~ac~ ~s so. However, what the Board does ffnd ~s that ~n the face of the major inconsistencies ~n the evidence, we conclude on a balance of 'p~obabilitles that the g~ievor ~n fac~ intentionally k~cked ~he patient. Wh~]e canno~ be r~.%led ou.t that the ~ievo~ did kick the patient, the evidence ]s not ~e]~ab]e and falls fa~ short of the required level of cogency. Just like Re,il? and Ms. Me~Jt~ saw what was Jn fac~ an acc~den~ as a delibez'ate punch to Mi*. F,~anklyn's groin, it w~}~e in f~a~ movement o~ ~he gL~o~'s ~eet as ~e att.-mptedto push the strugg.].in9 patient ~owm to the w'[tb a foot to p~event him f?om gett]n.~ up o._~ under the bed. ' For tb.e foregoing reasons, the Bo~',.~d co~cludes that the Employer has failed to e~tabl~.sh 3,~st cause fo~ the gr~evo~'s s~spenslon on March 30, 1988 and his subsequent discharge on April 6, I988, AccoTdingly,. the Employer is dfl-ected to ~orthwJth ~eJn~tate the . in his fo~mer 3ob with no loss of senlori~v or earnings .... ~.~ 0n the a~reement of the Dart~es ,tho ~n~d retains 3urlsdlction in the event the D~t-t~es have dif~icu!tY with ~egard to the issue of compensation. Da~.ed thls 10th dMy of February, 1989 .i.n Hamilton, Ontario Nimal V. D~sanayake Vice-Cha~ ~De~son ','I dissent" (OJssent attached). M, O' Toole Member DISSENT At first blush 1 was attracted to my cotleague's evidentiary assessment and conclusions. On closer scrutiny it has become clear to me that I must respectfully dissent. The evidence is accurately summarized in the majority award and, therefore, I shall not repeat it here. T~e issue is, as correctly stated at page 12 of the majority award, whether there is "cogent and reliable evidence that the grievor intentionally kicked 'the patient sometime during the incident". This issue is decided as follows at page 15 of the majority award: "However, what the 8oard does find is .that in the face of the major inconsistencies in the evidence, we cannot conclude on a balance of probabilities that .the grievor in fact intentionally kicked the patient" The "major inconsistencies" to which the majority refers concern 3 points: 1. The number of kicks; 2. The part of R.B's body that was kicked; 3. The time at which the kick or kicks, occurred. Stated generally, I find the majority's approach to these inconsistencies, while careful, to be excessively intellectual and, as a consequence, their failure to be satisfied that a kick took place is wholly artificial and not in keeping ¥~ith the reasonable probabilities inherent in the situation. ~Jore particularly, the majority's analysis is fta~ved by failing to accord sufficient weight to the following' First, 5 eyewitnesses were certain that they observed the grievor kick R.B, even if there were'discrepancies as to the number of kicks they observed. It is highly unlikely that 5 eyewitnesses would perceive a kick where none in fact occurred even during a chaotic situation such as occurred here.. The majority's suggestion that these 5 individuals may have misperceived an attempt to push R.B. to the floor as-an intentional kick seems unrealistic. It implies that 5 health care professionals who are required on a daily basis to make judgements about behaviour all mistook a professional for an unprofessional act. That, quite frankly, seems far fetched. i submit that the reverse of the above suggestion of the majority could equally well explain the failure of Mr. Wakefield to observe any kick at alt. Inotherwords, it is equally probable that Mr. Wakefield in the heat of the moment misperceived an intentional kick as an attempt to push R.B. to the floor. Surely, where 5 of the eyewitnesses who gave evidence are certain of at least one kick and only one such eyewitness is certain of no kick the balance of probabilities should be in favour of the former, unless there is a positive indication that the witnesses did not all have a relatively equal opportunity to observe. There was no such indication here. Second, at page 12 the majority acknowledges that the accuracy of perception of all witnesses may have been impaired to some degree by the chaotic nature of the struggle. The majority, however, are only prepared to make allowanc~ for such impairment with respect to what they term "details", in which case they will excuse discrepancies. They appear to exclude from '~details" such variables as the number, target and ti~i~Q of the I submit_that 'the above restriction is unreasonable as it ignores the fact that if perception in general is impaired then any variable subject to perception may be affected. If the above restriction is removed and alt discrepancies in the evidence are scrutinized according to the same standard, m ~ ~ it cannot be confidently stated that the evidence of a kick as a whole is unreliable. Third, at page 12 of their award the majority wrongly conclude that "if the Board were to accept all of the evidence of the employer's witnesses, there must have been at least six different kicks by the §rievor". As the majority themselves point out at page 12 "every person'in the room could not have observed every move of the grievor". Also, as alluded to by the majority at pages t5 to 16, even those movements in fact observed by everyone · ~. may have been interpreted differently. Therefore, the more appropriate conclusion is that it cannot be determined how many times the grievor was i. kicked but that he was kicked. Having regard to the foregoing, I would have found that there was clear and cogent evidence establishing that the grievor intentionally kicked R.B., that such conduct, being "a very serious form of physical abuse" as stated at page II of the m~jo~ity award, c~nstitut~6 just c~us~ for discharge and I would, accordingly, have dismissed the grievance. M.F. O'Toole Member