Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1105.Williams.11-11-08 DecisionCommission de Crown Employees Grievance Settlement UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV Board GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD Couronne Suite 600 Bureau 600 180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 7pO   Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF   GSB#2008-1105 UNION#2008-0517-0027 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Williams) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Joseph D. Carrier FOR THE UNION John Brewin Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER Jennifer Richards and Michelle Dobranowski Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel HEARINGFebruary 2, April 6, June 15, July 15, August 23, September 2, November 23, December 8, 2010, February 7, March 14, April 21, June 15, June 20, July 19, August 15, 2011. Decision [1]This Award now deals with the merits of the grievance of Mr. Jason Williams who alleged that his termination from the position of Corrections Officer in 2008 was unjust. The case had originally come before me in February of 2010 and, following the completion of the Employer's evidence, Mr. John Brewin, counsel for the Union, advanced a motion for non-suit. That motion was dismissed in a written decision issued on or about February 4, 2011. As is customary in such cases before this Board, I did not set out detailed reasons for the dismissal of the motion; however, I did set out there under the heading "Background and Employer Evidence" an outline of the reasons for Mr. Williams' termination as presented by employer counsel. The following duplicates that part of the February 4, 2011 Award: BACKGROUND AND EMPLOYER EVIDENCE ³ At the time of his termination in 2008 Mr. Williams had been a corrections officer for approximately 20 years. At that time he had a clear disciplinary record with respect to his employment. He was terminated for inappropriate conduct much of which took place while he was on paid leave from his regular duties. The following comprises an outline of the allegations with reference to Mr. Williams' impugned conduct: 1.In 2007 he failed to notify his superintendent of his arrest on a criminal charge; 2.In 2008 Mr. Williams is again alleged to have failed to notify his superintendent of his arrest and incarceration with respect to further criminal charges including that conduct which precipitated his termination here; 3.Mr. Williams failed to co-operate in the Ministry investigation into his off duty conduct which had resulted in his arrest on January 8, 2008 and in his incarceration until February 5, 2008; 4.The course of conduct engaged by Mr. Williams leading up to his arrest in January 2008 included interaction with local police officers of two different municipalities. Some of - 2 - that interaction was by telephone and some involved direct physical confrontation. Included was the following conduct: (a)having been instructed by police to refrain from contacting his ex-wife, he did so immediately thereafter. This domestic matter resulted in a charge of criminal harassment; (b)When subsequently contacted by police officers respecting his continued harassment, he made death threats to the police and warned that he would set his two dogs on any officer who might come to interfere with him or pick him up; (c)Soon thereafter police in a neighbouring municipality received an emergency FDOOIURP0U:LOOLDP¶VPRWKHU6KHZDVFRQFHUQHGWKDWKHKDGWDNHQDNQLIH from her kitchen and left her home in an agitated state. Officers were dispatched to intercept him. This led to a series of events including a police chase, charges of impaired driving, dangerous operation of a vehicle, failure to stop for police and finally assault with a weapon. The evidence adduced indicated that Mr. Williams was observed driving erratically by police and, when followed and flagged, failed to stop. Ultimately, he did stop when a road block put up by other officers impeded his progress. During the course of a confrontation at the site, while still in his vehicle, Mr. Williams made to drive towards an officer; the officer was obliged to step out of the way to avoid being hit. When attempts were made to arrest Mr. Williams he resisted to the extent that tasers were required to subdue him. Additionally, it took the efforts of several officers to get him into the back of one of the police vehicles. The events leading to his arrest involved approximately five police vehicles. For clarity, the assault charge related to the alleged attempt by the Grievor to strike an officer with his car. - 3 - Without attempting to outline the entire rationale for the Employer's decision to terminate Mr. Williams, which included his failure to notify the employer on two occasions of his arrests, essentially it was based upon conduct, albeit off duty, which the Employer viewed as inconsistent with his position as an officer of the peace, in particular, since much of it was directed at other officers of the peace. His conduct was viewed as serious and incompatible with the standards expected of persons in his position with the Ministry. Additionally, it was incompatible with the SXEOLFSHDFHZKLFKLWZDVKLVGXW\DQGUHVSRQVLELOLW\WRXSKROG´ [2]I did not, of course, set out my reasons in the earlier Award in which I dismissed the Union's non-suit motion. I can now confirm that the allegations concerning the Grievor's conduct outlined in that Award and set out above where proven through testimony and other evidence introduced during the Employer's case. That evidence included direct testimony by officers involved in both incidents, the one in Peel as well as that in Toronto. For instance, the Grievor did indeed threaten that, if officers in Peel came to his home to arrest him, he would kill them and/or set his dogs upon them. As for the Toronto incident, amongst other things, he resisted stopping for the police and exiting his car when he was instructed to do so; instead, when he first stopped his vehicle and was confronted by an officer, he drove forward as if to hit the officer who was obliged to step out of the way. Additionally, when he finally stopped and exited his vehicle, he continued to be uncooperative such that tasers were employed to control him before he could be forced into the back of the police car. [3]Aside from his reporting failures, it was my view that this conduct was egregious and, although it occurred while Mr. Williams was off duty, was totally inconsistent with his position and status as an officer of the peace and a servant of the public engaged to keep that peace which he blatantly offended. In my view, although his inappropriate response to his personal problems including the harassment of his ex-wife might not have justified termination, his excessive and - 4 - dramatic confrontation with the police, who are fellow-Officers of the Peace, put him beyond the pale of misconduct which was only marginally related to his position as a Corrections Officer. His confrontation with the police undermined his integrity as a Corrections Officer and his responsibility to uphold the law and the peace. Indeed, if there were mitigating circumstances to relieve against his termination, sound evidence in his defence would be necessary. [4]Unfortunately, evidence of that nature was not forthcoming. Although I do not believe Mr. Williams meant to be dishonest or to mislead, his testimony with respect to the negative aspects of his conduct was vague and equivocal in many significant elements. On the other hand, his recollection and characterization of what he considered wrongs done to him seemed clear and detailed. I will outline later in this Award some examples to demonstrate that view. For the time being, however, I concluded that 0U:LOOLDPV¶WHVWLPRQ\FRXOGQRWEHDFFHSWHGDW face value. Accordingly, where it conflicted with that of police officers, the latter was preferred; similarly, where it was simply self supportive, it would have to be considered with some skepticism. [5]With respect to my concerns regarding the nature of Mr. Williams¶WHVWLPRQ\,QRZRIIHU the following examples: 1.With respect to the Peel charges, there were facts agreed to by his criminal counsel relevant to his conditional discharge. In his concessions, counsel admitted to criminal harassment by Mr. Williams of his former wife. That plea reflected approximately 16 voice mail messages including insults and threats both to his ex-wife herself and incidentally to a police officer friend of hers. In his testimony, Mr. Williams did not recall that he had made so many calls nor was he readily forthcoming about the threats he had made. Rather, he remembered quite clearly his ex-wife's unfair treatment of him - 5 - which had precipitated his calls. She was still enjoying coverage for health and other insured benefits as Mr. Williams named spouse pursuant to his employer's insurance policies. He needed her consent to replace her with his current girlfriend. 2. Mr. Williams recalled that when he initially stopped his car for the Toronto Police that the officer standing in front of him had his gun drawn. However, he denied hearing the officer instruct him to get out of the car nor did he recall attempting to drive into the officer; rather he explained that he drove on because this officer had his gun drawn whereas the officers for whom he ultimately stopped and exited his car did not have their weapons drawn. The Grievor's explanation or version of this event simply defied credibility. Even if he did not hear the command to exit his car, which the Police testified had been given, surely an officer such as Mr. Williams would have recognized that the appropriate reaction to a police officer standing before his car and holding a weapon was a compliant enquiry as to what the officer wished rather that an attempt to flee or, worse still, run him down. Mr. Williams' explanation was not tenable in the circumstances. 3. Mr. Williams explained his uncooperative behaviour with the police as a reaction to his first having been brutalized at their hands. Mr. Williams is no frail individual. On the contrary, he is a body builder and a powerful looking individual. If he chose to resist arrest, which was obvious from the evidence, he would not be easily subdued. That the police were obliged to use some degree of force as well as tasers to overcome his resistance is not surprising. His recollection of resisting related only to his having been handcuffed in an uncomfortable manner and his concern that his dogs be cared for before he entered the police vehicle. While that was not inconsistent with the police evidence, it occurred after he had been subdued rather than before or during the initial attempts to get - 6 - him under control. Again, the Grievor's memory was convenient with respect to the negative aspects of his conduct. 4. In his pursuit of mitigation in this case he outlined therapy programs he had attended since his arrest in 2008. However, he conveniently failed to recall that all of those programs had been mandated by the court not in relation to the matters described here, but with respect to a prior incident in 2007. At that earlier time, he had been conditionally discharged upon the posting of a peace bond with respect to his conduct involving yet another woman in the Waterloo area of the Province. Indeed, he had forgotten that his participation in at least one of those programs had been interrupted by his arrest and incarceration in relation to the matter now before me. 5.In addition to the foregoing, the Grievor testified that he had a good disciplinary record with the Employer and viewed himself as an exemplary employee. However, once that matter was put in issue, the Employer was able to introduce records of Mr. Williams past discipline. There, among several disciplinary incidents, most of which Mr. Williams barely recalled, were two significant suspensions including one for insubordinate conduct to a superior. Mr. Williams had a more than faulty memory with respect to those prior incidents of misconduct and discipline. [6]7KHIRUHJRLQJUHSUHVHQWVRQO\DVDPSOHRIWKHLQVWDQFHVGXULQJZKLFK0U:LOOLDPV¶ selective or convenient memory was apparent. Again, I do not consider that he intended to misrepresent the events. Rather, it is my view that he simply recalled better those memories which cast him in a better light while the unfavourable events or aspects of those events were almost entirely lost to him. Accordingly, Mr. Williams was able to perceive himself in a much more favourable light than would an objective observer. In any event, his misconduct and the - 7 - explanations for it must be considered objectively and not through Mr:LOOLDPV¶RZQURVH coloured glasses. His apparent sincerity and good intentions expressed during his testimony were inconsistent with the conduct which resulted in his termination. [7]Aside then from his efforts to explain the events leading up to his arrest and charges, Mr. Williams went on to testify concerning his view of the underlying cause for his inappropriate conduct and the efforts he had undertaken to overcome that problem. Mr. Williams testified that during the relevant period he had been taking significant quantities of valium while at the same time over-indulging in alcohol. It was his self diagnosis that the combination of these two substances caused his erratic behaviour. There was no medical evidence from any physician or addiction specialist to confirm either that Mr. Williams was addicted to those substances or that the combination of the two would likely cause the aberrant behaviour exhibited by Mr. Williams during these events. In the circumstances, we KDYHRQO\0U:LOOLDPV¶VHOIGLDJQRVLVWKDWKLV abuse of those substances was the cause of his problems and his personal assurances that he would refrain from the combination in the future. On the other hand, there was no acknowledgment by him or medical evidence that he was indeed an addict or alcoholic or that he continued to follow a program involving abstinence with respect to either substance. [8]With respect to his reporting failures, Mr. Williams testified concerning both the Waterloo matters in 2007 as well as those here with respect to the Peel and Toronto charges. Regarding Waterloo, the Grievor testified that he did not report his incarceration to the Corrections Superintendent because his lawyer had told him not to because it might get him fired. With respect to the more recent matters, Mr. Williams originally suggested that he did not report because he was not actively engaged as a Corrections Officer at the time of the events; - 8 - rather, he was on paid leave with respect to a human rights issue. Furthermore, it was his belief that he need not report the 2008 events to the Superintendent of his home institution since he was incarcerated in a sister facility and he was aware that a communication to that effect had been passed between the two. Indeed, he had been contacted by someone from his home facility while being held in the other jail. [9]With respect to his failure to cooperate with the investigating CISU Officer who sought an explanation of the events leading to his incarceration, Mr. Williams explained that he had been instructed by his criminal counsel to provide little or no details concerning those events. Although the investigating officer had read to Mr. Williams the Standing Order requiring his cooperation and the possible consequences of failure, Mr. Williams testified that he didn't believe he had ever physically read that Standing Order and that he chose instead to follow his criminal counsel's advice. Furthermore, when it appeared that the Employer had provided all officers with an update of the Standing Orders in or about 2004, the Grievor acknowledged having been offered a copy at that time, however, he also testified that he had refused to sign an acknowledgment that he had received and read them since he had not in fact been given an opportunity to review the Orders before they were presented with a request for signature. In effect, he received them but did not feel responsible for their content since he believed his rights to review the documents in advance of signing a receipt had been infringed. THE SUBMISSIONS [10] Mr. John Brewin on behalf of the Union took the position that the Grievor's failure to report his charges and incarceration in 2007 and again in 2008 in accordance with the Ministry of Corrections policy, even if culpable conduct, would not warrant termination but some penalty of a lesser nature. Similarly, the failure to fully respond to the CISU Investigator was reasonably - 9 - explained by the Grievor who was following instructions from his criminal counsel. Furthermore, as in the case of his failure to report, the failure to respond, if culpable conduct, did not warrant termination. In the circumstances, it was the Union's position that the only conduct which might warrant a significant penalty was that for which he was charged criminally. Mr. %UHZLQDUJXHGWKDW0U:LOOLDPV¶PLVFRQGXFWEHsides having taken place during off duty hours, was of a kind for which corrections officers have not typically been terminated. Furthermore, 0U:LOOLDPV¶H[SODQDWLRQIRUKLVEHKDYLRXUVKRXOG be taken into consideration along with his more than satisfactory 23 years of service to this Ministry. Mr. Brewin pointed out that there had been no similar misconduct in the past and during these events Mr. Williams had not physically assaulted anyone. It was, Mr. Brewin argued, an isolated incident which occurred during a bad period in Mr. Williams' life while he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs. He has since then taken remedial steps in that respect. In all the circumstances, there was no direct physical assault and the misconduct by Mr. Williams was directed not at inmates or persons entrusted to his care and custody but at the police, that is, persons in society who are best equipped to defend themselves. Accordingly, while some level of discipline was appropriate, termination was excessive. Mr. Williams should be reinstated subject to considerations to be worked out between the parties. [11] Since the Union's motion for non-suit was considered and dismissed earlier during these proceedings, I took the liberty of outlining its position here before that of the Employer. On behalf of the Employer, Ms. Jennifer Richards responded that the documents relied on by the Union and Mr. Williams to demonstrate remedial therapy undertaken by him provided no useful information such as to justify his reinstatement. Rather, the attendance at PAARC was not voluntary but mandated by the court in response to an earlier incident with another individual for whom Mr. Williams was required to provide a peace bond. Therefore, it did not demonstrate any - 10 - clear recognition that Mr. Williams had learned a lesson. It confirmed only that he had complied with the court order to attend a series of sessions. The letter does not in any way certify successful results with a councillor or some authority from PAARC. As to the letter from Peel Family Services, again, Mr. Williams' attendance was mandated by the court with respect to criminal charges in Waterloo which culminated in the peace bond referred to earlier. Again, the document confirms the Grievor's attendance in the program, a process the completion of which was required in order to be released from his peace bond. Furthermore, there was no rationale or satisfactory explanation for Mr. Williams' misconduct. There was instead his self-serving testimony concerning his personal problems and purported abuse of alcohol and prescription drugs. THE DECISION [12] It is my view that there was, indeed, no objective evidence to confirm that Mr. Williams was dependent upon alcohol and/or valium or that the use or abuse of those substances was the SULPDU\FDXVHRI0U:LOOLDPV¶EHKDYLRXU)Xrthermore, there was no objective evidence to show that whatever problems he did have and which caused his erratic behaviour were clearly identified and remedied. There was no objective evidence that his participation in PAARC and/or the Family Services Programs were appropriate and/or directed at some objective identified medical condition suffered by Mr. Williams and/or that the condition was successfully treated in or through these programs. In the circumstances, the evidence did not establish that Mr. Williams suffered from some addiction which had been successfully treated. Rather, at best, ZHKDYHRQO\0U:LOOLDPV¶WHVWLPRQ\WKDWDOWKRXJKQRWDGGLFWHGKHKDGRYHULQGXOJHGLQ alcohol and prescription drugs which contributed to his erratic behaviour. However, his medical self diagnosis, even more so than much of his other evidence, cannot be relied upon as objective or expert opinion. More importantly, it does not justify his behaving in a manner which was - 11 - totally inconsistent with his status as an Officer of the Peace.There was, therefore, no evidence which might be relied upon to overturn Mr. WilliamV¶WHUPLQDWLRQ+LVVHQLRULW\DQGUHFHQWFOHDU record are alone insufficient to mitigate the discipline imposed or give comfort to the Employer that concern about a possible recurrence would be unwarranted. [13] As indicated earlier in this Award, I had dismissed a Non-Suit Motion by the Union earlier in these proceedings after the Employer had completed its evidence and closed its case. My reasons for dismissing that Motion related to my view that the Employer had introduced sufficient evidence to justify termination. It is regrettable for Mr. Williams that his evidence does not mitigate that conclusion. My reasons for upholding his termination are outlined in the following: 1.As indicated elsewhere in WKLV$ZDUG0U:LOOLDPV¶WHstimony was equivocal in many areas and, although not deliberately dishonest was sufficiently self-serving as to be unreliable. His memory was "convenient" at best. 2.Where his testimony conflicted with that of police officers, that of the officers was preferred. 3.In the circumstances, his self diagnosis with respect to alcohol and prescription drugs was unreliable. It cannot form the basis for a medical addiction or a handicap which might necessitate the consideration of some accommodation. There was no medical evidence that might have brought into play the protection of the Human Rights Code of Ontario. 4.The occasional abuse of alcohol and/or drugs while it might explain erratic behaviour does not justify its occurrence. To put it more simply, it is no excuse to say I was drunk so I ought not to be held responsible for my misconduct. - 12 - 5.0U:LOOLDPV¶EHKDYLRXUZDVPRUHWKDQGUDPDWLFRQWKHGD\KHZDVDUUHVWHGKRZHYHU the breathalyzer test indicated that, although impaired, his blood alcohol level was not exceptionally high. There was no objective scientific evidence confirming that alcohol and valium when together typically produce erratic and violent behaviour in some individuals. In the circumstances, the cauVHRI0U:LOOLDPV¶HUUDWLFFRQGXFWUHPDLQV unexplained. 6. Having considered the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied on the basis of the police reports and testimony that the Grievor did in fact engage in that course of conduct described in Item 4 set out earlier in the outline of the allegations against him. That conduct, directed primarily at police officers, was totally inconsistent with his own status as an Officer of the Peace. 7.I was satisfied also on the evidence that Mr. Williams was aware of his duty to report to his Superintendent that he had been criminally charged by the police in 2007 and again in 2008 in reference to the incidents now before me. His explanations that his lawyer had advised him not to do so and/or that he believed that he was not an employee of the Ministry of Corrections at the time and/or that he was not conversant with the Standing Orders in that regard were not acceptable, reliable or satisfactory. As a Corrections Officer Mr. Williams was a public servant and an Officer of the Peace. That is a semi- military type of status. As such, it would be more than surprising that Mr. Williams would not realize his arrest for any reason might conflict with his responsibility to the public at large to keep the peace. It follows, that his employer, the Ministry of Corrections, has an overriding obligation to the public and a fundamental interest and entitlement to be apprised of any such charges against its officers. Based upon the - 13 - evidence received, it is not believable nor is it acceptable as a matter of common sense that Mr. Williams was unfamiliar with the Standing Orders to report such charges and/or that he would not be aware of that obligation or appreciate the reasons for it. There was no excuse that Mr. Williams was unable to access telephones or other equipment to contact his employer and, absent evidence to that effect, I am not satisfied with the Grievor's excuses. His failure to report on these two occasions was, therefore, culpable conduct in itself. 8.On the other hand, it is understandable that Mr. Williams might fail to fully respond to WKH&,68,QYHVWLJDWRU¶VTXHVWLRQV on the advice of his criminal counsel. In my view that was so notwithstanding that he had been read excerpts of the requirement by the investigator. Although understandable, it was nonetheless, a violation of his duties with respect to those requirements and, therefore, culpable conduct. However, in the scheme of the conduct for which Mr. Williams was terminated, it was not determinative. 9.More importantly, I do not concur with Mr. Brewin's submission or conclusion that Mr. Williams' conduct was not of the nature for which termination is appropriate. It may well be that arbitration awards respecting termination for similar misconduct are not available, however, that Mr. Brewin was unable to unearth case law respecting officers who had engaged in similar misconduct to that of the Grievor did not of itself mean that such conduct did not warrant termination. It meant only that no such case had been tried or reported in the past. Indeed, terminations for similar conduct might never have reached the arbitration stage. Be that as it may, I am satisfied here that the Grievor's course of conduct was not simply a matter of a personal marital difficulty but escalated into a direct and physical confrontation with the police.That conduct was not only inconsistent with - 14 - his own status as an Officer of the Peace but intolerable as a representative of the Ministry of Corrections. As indicated earlier, there was no satisfactory explanation for his conduct and, I suspect, there might have been some underlying cause which did not surface throughout these proceedings. Be that as it may, the explanations and excuses for his erratic behaviour were not objective or satisfactory. Although I found the Grievor to be sincere, I was also of the view that he was in denial with respect to his conduct. He did not recall the worst of his behaviour and his lack of recall raises more concerns than answers. In the absence of some objective medical reason which might explain what triggered Mr. Williams' erratic course of uncontrolled behavior as well as the assumption or undertaking of clear and appropriate corrective measures, there is no basis upon which to consider reinstatement. There is no objective evidence which might be offered to satisfy the Employer or the public at large that Mr. Williams could again be a reliable member of the corrections force without the risk of recurrence. [14] While the conduct was off duty, it is my view that it satisfied several of the elements arbitrators look to when considering the impact of such off duty conduct on employment. For instance, although there was no evidence offered that these incidents were reported in the media, Mr. Paul Greer, the Superintendent to whom the Grievor was responsible, was of the view that Mr. Williams' conduct and incarceration was an embarrassment to his facility and the Ministry itself. Furthermore, during police attempts to arrest him, Mr. Williams demeaned the officers, he bragged that he had many more years' service as a corrections officer than they had as police. In effect he considered their service as officers of the peace to be the same as his own and that his was superior by reason of his many years of service. By making that comparison while at the same time physically resisting the Police, he certainly brought his position and corrections itself into disrepute with those particular officers. Worse still, because of the risk he posed as a trained - 15 - officer, his conduct was, for safety reasons, broadcast to the attention of many other police officers in the two affected municipalities. I have little hesitation in concluding, both from that evidence and by implication as well, that the reputation of the Ministry of Corrections itself was harmed by his conduct. [15] In addition to the disgrace he brought upon the office of Corrections Officers, his conduct was inconsistent with his duties and put him in a conflict of interest with the very Office he was engaged to represent. Given the dramatic nature of his misconduct in confrontation with other Officers of the Peace, his return to those duties which involve custodial responsibility over the criminal inmates of corrections institutions would be inappropriate. Indeed, having put himself in the category of a corrections inmate, it is difficult, absent more extenuating circumstances than were apparent in this case, to imagine Mr. Williams again managing inmates within such an institution. [16] In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr. Williams' off duty conduct impacted upon his Employer and the Office of Corrections Officer. Additionally, his conduct was so erratic, dramatic and inconsistent with his status that termination was an appropriate response. Finally, I ZDVQRWVDWLVILHGWKDW0U:LOOLDPV¶HYLGHQce concerning rehabilitation was voluntarily undertaken nor was I satisfied that the Grievor's self diagnosis correctly identified the underlying cause of his conduct. Unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Williams continues to be in self denial with respect to his conduct, its causes and its impact and consequences upon others as well as upon the position or Office of Corrections Officer. In brief, he demonstrated through his conduct, in particular that directed at other Officers of the Peace, a disrespect of and for the law. His many years of service as a Corrections Officer are not alone sufficient to overcome or mitigate the disrespect he exhibited for the position of Officer of the Peace. - 16 - >