Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-0115.Mahmood.77-09-06115/76 CROWN EviPLOYEES 416/964 6426 Suite 405 GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT 77 BZoor Street West C0Ar.D TORONTO, Ontario M5S lM2_ IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Mr. K. Mahmood And Ministry of Correctional Services Before: D. M. Beatty Chairman A. Fortier Member H. Weisbach Member For the Grievor Mr. G. A. Richards Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer A. H. Schaefer Ministry of Correctional Services Hearing February 7, 1977 & August 29, 1977 Suite 405, 77 Bloor Street West Toronto, Ontario I_ ~. (Grievor) (Employer) -_ - .i -_.” -2- i (: i: (i Mr. K. Mahmood, who is grieving the propriety of the employer's action in terminating him from his employment on November 24, 1976, was first employed as a Crown employee, through the Government of Ontario Temporary Help Services, on September 2, 1975, as a stationary engineer at the Power House of the Mimic0 Correctional Centre. More specifically, and as the parties agreid, Mr. Mahmood was hired, pursuant to s.8 of the Public Service Act, as part of the unclassified service that is described in s.5 of the Regulations promulgated under that Act. Thus and as described in that section, Mr. Mahmood fell in that part of the unclassified service which is employed: (c) on a temporary work assignment arranged by the Commission in accordance with its program for providing temporary help It is a matter of record that Mr. Mahmood remained in that capa- city until May 17, 1976 when he was appointed, pursuant to s.6 of the Public Service Act, to the position of a stationary engineer . on thee classified staff of the Public Service. There is no dispute, on the evidence before this Board, that the duties and responsjbilities required of Mr. Mahmood during the period he was on the unclassified staff did not materially differ from those assigned to the other stationary engineers employed at the Mimic0 Correctional Centre‘on the classified staff nor from those assigned to him when subsequently he too was appointed to a position in that portion of the Publk Service. As well, from the evidence, it would appear that although, as a member of the unclassified staff he was technically- - - ..?- c ,_1 -3- \\ employed and paid by the Government of Ontario Temporary Help Services, in fact, as a matter of control and direction he was under the direct supervision of persons employed on the classified staff at the Mimic0 Correctional Centre. However, and those similarities notwithstanding, it is also agreed between the parties that when he was employed as a member of the unclassified staff he was paid at a different, and slightly lower rate than persons who were employed in similar positions on the classified staff, did not enjoy any of the various fringe benefits paid to persons on the classified staff, such as pension and insurance rights, vacation entitlements and the like, and was never subject to an appraisal of his work performance. As noted above, Mr. Mahmood was transferred from the unclassified to the classified portion of the Public Service, without interruption of service and without alteration of duties on May 17, 1976. From the evidence before this Board there was apparently nothing exceptional in his performance on the classified staff until the evening of September 21-22, when an incident occurred which caused'the employer to decide to sever Mr. Mahmood's employment from the Public Service and which gave rise to the grievance before us: The events which transpired on that evening are, subject to certain differences, a matter of genera! agreement between the parties and may be briefly described at the outset. According to Mr. Mahmood, which was not challenged by the employer. he had been suffering from a cold and congested conditions for - several weeks prior to the night in question and had,actually' booked off work on September 14, 1976 because ofthisconditron. - Moreover he testified that although he was still feeling the \'\ affects of this cold when he left for work~on the evening of September 21, he felt he was sufficiently fit to be able to work that night. However, according to his evidence, by the time he actually reported for work he was feeling sufficiently ill and running enough of a fever that he requested a Mr. Kahn, the stationary engineer, whom he was relieving at 1l:OO p.m. if the latter would be willing to work an additional shift for him. According to the grievor, Mr. Kahn stated that because he was c fasting at the time he would be unable to do so, but he was able to offer the grievor two tablets of "Contact C" which he advised would relieve ~the grievor's congested and feverish condition. (. " The grievor testified that after he had taken over from Mr. Kahn he began his tour of duty by attending to his regular assignments which included checking the various safety systems and doing water analyses until approximately 1:15 or 1:30 a.m..at which time, because his condition had not improved, he took one of the two tablets of Contact C which Mr. Kahn had provided him. However far from relieving his problems, Mr. Mahmood testified that his condition continued to deteriorate and that in addition to his fever he developed a headache. Accordingly, at approximately 3:00 - 3:30 a.m. he decided he would takeethe second tablet of Contact C. Moreover, in order to avoid the heat of the boiler room, whSch he estimated at approximately 34'C he periodically would step outside of the Power House into what all conceded was a cool evening, in order to relieve hi's condition. Indeed, - ultimately between 3:30 and 3:45 a.m., Mr. Mahmood decided to lay down in a storage room'which was in the Power House and adjacent to the boiler room. According to Mr. Mahmood he decided (:” -5- \\ to lay down in this particular room because it was significantly cooler than the boiler room, and was out of range of the high powered overhead lighting that was used in the boiler room. While Mr. Mahmood was so engaged in his efforts to relieve his feverish condition,_Mr. Dougdeen, who as the shift supervisor was in charge of the institution on that evening, was receiving complaints from staff and inmates alike that the temperature in the institution was dropping and was sufficiently cool to be uncomfortable. In response to these complaints Mr. Dougdeen testified he tried to contact Mr. Mahmood in the Power House, without success, in order to determine what the latter could do.to remedy the situation. According to Mr. Dougdeen he personally tried - to phone Mr. Mahmood three or four times around 3:30 a.m. without avail. Indeed he testified, and Mr. Watkins confirmed, that he also had the latter attempt to call Mr. Mahmood at 4:00 a.m., again without success. According to Mr. Watkins, he tried unsuccessfully on at least four different occasions to reach Elr. Mahmood by phone. When these efforts went unrewarded, Mr. Dougdeen testified he distributed blankets to those inmates who were in need of them and then, together with his assistant Mr. Gayadeen went over to the Power House in order to determine what the problem and where Mr. Mahmood was. Both Messrs. Dougdeen and Gayadeen testified that they searched throughout the Power House and finally, at approximately 4:30 a.m. located the grievor asleep on some towels in the storage room. They testified, although Mr. Mahmood claimed otherwise, that - the~grievor did not awake when Mr. Dougdeen flicked the lights on - and off several times and it was only when Mr. Gayadeen shook him -6- that the latter regained consciousness. For his part, while not denying that he may have "lost consciousness" at some point as a result of having taken the two tablets of Contact C, Mr. Mahmood claimed he saw Mr. Dougdeen flick the lights and denied that Mr. Gayadeen had ever shaken him. Once awake it is agreed some conversation passed between them in which Mr. Dougdeen inquired of the griever's condition and to which he responded "I'm okay" or "I'll be okay" or words to that effect. However, according to Messrs. Dougdeen and Gayadeen, and this was not denied by the grievor,.at no time did Mr. Mahmood ever explain to them the general state of his health nor,the reasons why he decided he had to lay down in the manner he had. Rather, after confirming with them that the outside temperature was approximately 5' - 7'C and that the pressure in the boilers was at the required level, he resumed his position in the boiler room and they returned to their duties in the main building of the complex. It was essentially for his behaviour on the evening of September 21-22, 1976 that the employer determined to terminate the services of the grievor. In doing so, the employer took the position that because Mr. Mahmood was, at the time, still a probationary employee, it was justified'in drawing the conclusion from his dereliction of duty that he was not a suitable candidate to be placed on the permanent staff of their classified service,. Put simply, it was the employer's position that given the statutory responsibility assumed by the grievor as a result of his position (see Operating Engineers Act RSO 1970 C.333) and against .- d the standards this Board has set out in me ~rfk~en u/75 and which - we confirmed in me Joyce Z/76, the grievor's conduct on the night in question fully justified the termination that was effected by it. ‘. -?- ( L'\ For its part, and before addressing the merits of the employer's decision to terminate Mr. Mahmood, the Union argued that in fact the grievor had completed his probationary period on September 2, 1976 and that the standards and tests we described in Re Eriksen and Re Joyce were simply nat applicable to him. The Union supported this position by arguing that under Article 19 of the collective agreement the grievor was entitled to rount, towards his period of probation, the time he spent with the Ministry as part of its unclassified, temporary staff. More specifically, it was the Union's position that the grievor was entitled to count the period of time between September 2;1975 and May 17, 1976 towards the completion of his probationary period because it was part of his "continuous service" within the meaning of Article 19 of the agreement. To that end the Union referred us to a decision of the Public Service Grievance Board in Re Canners 721/73. Moreover J it was the Union's position that~even if the grievor's service on the unclassified staff could not be regarded as service within the bargaining unit, nevertheless, on analogous reasoning to that c employed in the case of a managerial person who returns to a job in the bargaining unit, that service should be regarded as continuous service within the meaning of Article-19 of the agreement and be credited towards his probationary period. In that regard the Union referred us to the decision of the board of arbitration in Re EspanoZa .&nerd ~Rospital (1975), 9 L.A.C. (21) 36 10’Comwrl. Finally and in the alternative, the Union contended that.because the staff of the Mimic0 Correctional Centre actually controlled and supervised the work assignements-of the grievor, and supplied his .- _ ._ -a- \i tools of work that even when employed on-the unclassified staff the griever must properly be regarded as an employee of this Ministry rather than of the Government's Temporary Help Service. In the resul~t and on this line of reas0nin.g it was the Union's position that as a seniority rated employee, on the standards we have outlined in such awards as Re’Ma, l/75; while the grievor may have warranted some disciplinary sanction for his conduct on the evening in question, the penalty of discharge was palpably unreasonable. After adjourning the proceedings so as to allow us to consider the representations of the parties on this preliminary issue, the Board reconvened the hearing and rendered our decision to the effect that in our view Mr. Mahmood was, at the time of his termination, a probationary employee. As we advised the parties at the hearing this conclusion can be supported on a variety of grounds. In the first place it is clear from s.6 of the Public Service Act that the concept of the probationary status is uniquely associated with those persons who are appointed to the classified service of the Public Service. Section 6 provides; 6, - (II When a vacancy exists in the dass‘ified service, the deputy minister of the ministry in which the vacmrcy e&&s da21 nominate in writing from the list of eZigibles of the Conntission a person to fill the vacancy. (2) The Conmission shalZ appoint the person nominated wader subsection 1 to a posi$Gm on the. probationary stuff of the c2assifi.d service for not more than one year at a time. . i Accordingly in the absence of some clear expression in the Legislation to the contrary or unless the parties themselves have - , -9- ( I\ validly agreed to some other arrangement, one would presume that the period during which a person would serve his or her probationary status would commence with his or her appointment to the classified portion of the Public Service. Moreok, in our view, such a presumption flows not only from the plain language of s.6 of the Public Service Act, but as well accords with the purpose and function of a probationary period. As we noted in our.W&4ksen 22/75 award, the probationary period is designed to recognize: . ..the Zegitimate interests of the employer in attempting to secure the most competent, compatible and suitubZe work farce it can acquire. One cannot reasonabZy expect an empZoyer to be able to assess the full capabiZitie5 and potentiality of a job appticant from a brief interview, an application fomn, references and the tike. Rather - he must be entitled to an opportwzity to via, the new hire in the particular context of his own work environment. That is the soZe purpose of -the probationary period. It is, as we have sdd, a Zegi timate purpose. Re Porcupine Area Ambulance Service and C.U.P.E. Local ‘1484 (1974), 7 L.A.C. (2) 182 (Beat@). Put succinctly, the probationary period is a time during which the employer can more fully assess the suitability and capabilities of persons whom it is considering for appofntment to . its permanent staff. So described it is, to this Board, clear that the concept of a probationary period is wholly inapplicable to persons, such as Mr. Mahmood, who are hired in the unclassified staff under s.8 of the Public Service Act, for a temporary period and who are not, by definition, being considered by the employer- ~for a position on the permanent staff. Accordingly to permit someone such as Eir. Kahmood, who is hired~by contract, for a specific period of time and on a temporary basiL_to count that - 10 - \\ service towards his probationary period would be to undermine and derogate from the very purpose of the probationary period. Very simply and throughout the period that such persons are employed on a temporary basis on the unclassified service there would, in the vast majority of cases, be no reason or rationale for the employer to,assess their capabilities and suitability for a permanent position on the classified service. Very simply, in the usual circumstance such persons simply would never be either considered for nor in fact appointed to the classified service of that employer on a'probationary basis let alone to a permanent position. Moreover, even in those circumstances when a person is hired on a probationary basis on the classified service by a Ministry, after having been employed as a temporary employee on the unclassified staff/there are sound reasons .why, in the absence of clear language to the contrary; such persons should not be entitled to credit that period of time towards completion of their probationary period. Very simply, to do so would, in those circumstances in which the persons's period of employment as a temporary employee was served in several different Ministries, prejudice the ability of the Ministry in whose classified staff he or she was ultimately placed, to assess, his or her suitability for a permanent position in their complement. .Indeed even if the person's period of temporary employment were served entirely within one Ministry, there would be numerous occasions, as indeed occurred in the & Connera decision referred to'us by the Kion, in which the employee might well be assigned to various - \\ institutions, locations and positions in that Ministry. Again, in such circumstances, to permit an employee to credit such service against their probationary period, if and when they were subsequently appointed to the classified staff, would seriously inhibit and prejudice the employer's ability to make a full and objective assessment of that person, thereby again undermining the legitimate purpose of the probationary period. c Apart from the clear language of s.6 of the Public Servtce Act and the logic of assuming that his probationary period can only be seen to commence on his appointment to the classified staff, there are, in the circumstances of temporary employees, additional compelling reasons to support the conclusion that the time they spend on the unclassified staff cannot be credited towards their probationary period if and when they are appointed to the classified staff. In the first place we would note that there is nothing in the collective agreement which would alter our perception that a period of temporary employment in the unclassified service should not be credited towards a person"-period of probation if and when he or she is taken on the classified staff. Although the ' Union directed our attention to Article 19 of the agreement, we are of the view that on any reasonable interpretation of that provision, there is in fact nothing in its terms which would support the Union's claim. That article provides: ArticZe 19 - Seniority 19.1 Length of continuous service (senioi-ityl -for -y each employee covered by this Agreement shaZ1 .’ be Province-wide and shall be eetabtished T -~ upon compZetCon of the probationary period of not more than me (1) year and &ill then . comnenoe from the date of the empZoyee’s hire. - 12 - :; Very simply and while that provision speaks to the time at which an employee's seniority shall be established and deemed to commence, it is silent as to what periods of employment may be credited toward that person's probationary period. -Put simply, Article 19.1 simply does not address the issue of what periods of service may be credited towards,an employee's period of probation. Indeed, when one considers that by s.1 (l)(g)(vi) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act persons, such as this grievor, who are employed on a temporary basis on the unclassified service, are expressly excluded from the definition of "employee" under the Act and from the scope of its terms, it I's difficult-to understand how Article 19 could have any application to Mr. Mahmood during the period he was so employed. Moreover we would note, with respect to those persons who are employed in the unclassjfied service but who by s.1 (l)(g)(v) of the Act are brought within the scope of the Act and for whom the Union may properTy bargain, the parties have clearly and carefully delineated which periods of such employment may be credited towards their period of probation if and when they are subsequently appointed to the classified staff. Thus Article 3.4.3. in describing the terms and conditions of employment of persons who, by virtue of s.l(l)(g](v)-of the Act are deemed to be "employees" within the meaning of the Act, provides that: Emptoyment in either category shaZZ not be corx&fered continuous service. An empZoyee,in either category who is appointed to the probatioivrry status of the CiviZ Service ehaZ2 be considered to be a new empZoyee, Provided however, that if such a position becbmes _ permanent then the time the emptoyee actualty worked shaZt be deducted from the employee’s probationary period, if the empZoyee has worked &thin the year prior to the appointment to probatiormy staff. I’ i\ l: i - 13 - Very simply, and particularly with respect to a, group of employees who are not even included within the terms of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining'Act, we would require similar specific and detailed language before we would accede to the Union's argument . that the parties intended to alter the clear intent of 5.6 of the Public Service,Act and allow persons employed on a temporary basis to credit such employment to their probationary period at the time they are appointed to the classified staff. In the result, we cannot accede to the Union's contention that at the time of his dismissal Mr. Mahmood has completed his probationary period. Nor do we believe that our conclusion is in any way affected by the decisions cited to us by the Union. In that regard we would note that the decision of the Public Service Grievance Board in Re’Conners~721/73 simply does not address the issue of what periods of employment may be credited towards a person's probationary period. Rather, that decision simply stands for the proposition that a person, such as Mr. Mahmood, who is appointed directly from a temporary position in the unclassified service to a position on the classified service can be said to be "continuously employed" within the meaning of s.49(1) of the Regulations promulgated under the Public Act and entitled to the procedural protections described therein when those two periods of service cumulatively total 12 months of employment. However and as we have noted earlier, given.the purpose of the period-of probation, we do not believe that it followsfrom the mere fact a person has.been so "continuously employed" that such n person could similarly be said to have completed their period of probation. Nor do we believe it assists the grievor's case to assert that on the tests described in Re ~Hudm-EZectAc parer , - 14 - ii Cononissi~ti'of'Ontario 11973), 3 L.A.C. (2dl 45 (Palmerj that Mr. Mahmood was, at all times, in fact and in law an employee of this Ministry at the Mimic0 Correctional Centre. Again and at the risk of repeating ourselves such an assertion simply does not affect the fact that he was, as a member of the unclassified staff, outside the parameters of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the collective agreement during the period he was so employed. Put succinctly, even if it were agreed that as a matter of law this Ministry was his employer while he was temporarily employed on the unclassified staff, that fact would, standing alone, say nothing to the issue of whether such a period .of employment could properly be included in his period of probation. Finally we do not believe that the analogy drawn by the Union between Mr. Mahmood's experience and that of the managerial employee who returns to the bargaining unit is an accurate or a particularly helpful one. In the first place and as we have stressed above, Mr. Mahmood's right to credit his service on the unclassified staff towards his probationary period on the classified i ’ staff is foreclosed by s.6(2) of the Public Service Act and s.l(l)(g)(vi) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. Put somewhat differently, whether a managerial employee can credit all of his "years of service" with a company towards his - "seniority“ rating under the terms of a collective agreement when he returns' to a position in the bargaining unit is, uitimately, a matter of interpretation of the relevant'provisions of that agreement and cannot affect the particular 1egislativC and.confractual 1: ;'\ scheme governing Mr. Mahmood's situation. In addition, we would note that except for the Re'EspaoZd'CeltsI'at'Rb~pitaZ case (SW& itself, virtually all of the cases referred to in that award addressed the issue of whether such a person could accumulate ~- seniority for a variety of purposes, such as biddFng on jobs or entitlement to benefits, having nothing to do with their probationary status which is the issue before us. As well it is, to this Board, important to realize that in the vast majority of cases cited in the Re Espanotd GetieMZ'HospitaZ award, the person whose seniority )'~ I was in issue, unlike this grievor, had~had some service in the bargaining unit or what became the bargaining unit prior to his promotion out of and subsequent transfer back to the unlit. In such cases, necessarily, the grievor would have already completed a period of probation in the bargaining unit. Indeed, in all of the cases referred to in that award, it is clearthat although the ~grievor had been employed with the company for some period of time outside of the unit, nevertheless he would have been hired, unlike this grievor,in the first instance on a permanent basis. In fact we would note that in those instances wherein the persons, who sought to include all of their service with the company as part of their seniority rating had never beeh employed in the actual .or eventual unit prior to the transfer in issue, there is simply no consensus in the private sector as to whether such persons _, would be entitled to do so. Rather an analysis of those cases reveals that ultimately the right of such persons to credit all -- of their years of service with the company to 6eir.seniorit.y . rat.ngvpon their transfer into the unit ultimately falls to be determined on the language of the agreement'Re'Gabriet~bf~CaM& - - 16 - Ltd. (19671, 18 L.A.C. 373 (Palmer). Applying much the same - ~analysis to the situation before us, we have, for the reasons described, come to the conclusion that on the relevant statutory and contractual provisions Mr. Mah&od is not entitled to credit towards his probationary period the period of employment he had on the temporary Staff of the unclassified service. In reaching the conclusion that Mr. Mahmood was, at-the time of his dismissal, still a probationary employee, does not affect our jurisdiction to pass on the merits of his complaint. To the contrary, as the parties before us recognized and as we have earlier concluded such a determination, rather than affecting our right to review the propriety of the employer's decision to terminate, alters the nature and scope of that review. Re Joyce 21/76. Specifically and as we have earlier .described, in assessing the propriety of an employer's decision to terminate a probationary employee, this Board's inquiry . . . ..should not take on the nature of an appeal as to the correctness of the company's prognostication as to the future prospects of the probationary employee. We have already stated that some of the legitimate concerns of an employer in assess- ing the future employment relationship of a new employee, vis. his character, compatibility, potentiality for advancement,and general suitability are necessarily vague. Further the judgment of the company is necessarily in the nature of a prognostication. Arbitrators should therefore be reluctant to interfere with that prognosis unless it is plain that the employer's assessment or standards are palpably unreasonable. However, should the employer fail to establish any basis for the termination of tbe probationary employee, or should it be demnstrat~ that his a&sessment or--the standards against which the assessment is made are unreasonable, boards Of arbitration must not sanction such disciplinary action simply on the basis that it was invoked against a probationary employee. In sum we would assert that although the proper basis for discharge of a probationary employee may be some- what broader than that justifying the termination of a seniority-rated employee, and although the - 17 - the standards of review bye boards of arbitration will be somewhat less rigorous, nevertheless the employer must affirmatively estatilish that his termina- tion of a probationary employee was reasonable in the circumstances. Re Porcupine Area Ambulance Service Supra, cited in ore 'Eriksen 12/75c pp 22-23 Against that standard we have determined, for the reasons that follow, that Mr. Mahmood's grievance must fail. Essentially, as the cited passage describes, our present task is to determine whethertheemployer's assessment of the grievor's future employment prospects is reasonable. In the present circum- stances that task reduces itself to answering the question of whether the employer was acting reasonably when it drew a ,nega- tive and conclusory opinion as to the grievor's future employment prospects from the incident of September 21-22. Standing alone, and by itself that question would normally merit a negative response. The reported jurisprudence amply attests to the certainty of that statement. Canadian L&our Arbitration #7:3570. Part.iCtJlarly would that be so here, where, the grievor has shown over a period in excess of a year that he has the technical capabilities to perform this job. That is to say and while we have earlier argued that Mr. Mahmood is not entitled to credit his period of service as a temporary Crown employee towards his probationary period, nevertheless that service would, in the usual circumstances, raise serious doubts as to the reasonableness of the emljloyer's conclusion as to his likely employment prospects. In such circumstances, a single indiscretion of this nature could not / in our view reasonably-be regarded as being more revealing of Mr. Mahmood's future employment prospects, than 'his previous work - record. Moreover, given the state of Mr. Mahmood's health on the evening irt question, all that could have bTen said of his conduit - 18 - t as it stood at that time, is that he was mistaken in attempt- / 't, \ ing to continue at work at a time when he should have booked off and secured relief. Against what we must take, by the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be an otherwise satiifactory employment record, such an error of judgement does not reasonably warrant the-conclusion that Mr. Mahmood has shown himself to be unsuitable for permanent employment. However, and in fact, the incident of September 21-22 is not the only basis on which the reasonableness of the employer's decision can ,now be tested. Put positively there is now evidence before this record that challenges the characterization of the grievor's behaviour as a mere error in judgement. Specifically we are referring to the fact that in our view the grievor attempted to mislead the Board in the presentation of his-evidence. In that regard we would note that not only was his assertion, made in cross examination, that earlier in the evening the security officer, Mr. Williams had not found him asleep, flatly denied by the latter's statement, but also his evidence as to what transpired when he met Mr. Dougdeen and Mr. Gayadeen was sharply contradicted in a number of specific details by them. Such a finding necessarily alters our perception as to the true nature of the events which trans- pired on September 21-22. More critically by successfully challenging his credibility, the employer has raised serious questions as to the griever's integrity and honesty. So much so, that this Board has repeatedly observed that such dishonesty will generally be taken by us as confirming the employer's assessment of the employee's ability, and willingness to conform - c -to an acceptable mode of behaviour. See Re Harris 7/75, Re Haight 23/75, Re Moss 62/76, Re Arsenault 69/76. - I1_ ;. : i ‘.. .“, c.: In our view, employees who are prepared to jeopardize the efficacy of these proceedings by attempting to mislead us in our deliberations can not be seen to have a sufficient regard for honesty which, as others have noted "is a touchstone'to viable employer - employee relations' Re Phillips Cables Ltd. (1974) 6 L.A.C. (2d) 35, 37-8 (Adams) s In the result and seen through the focus of these proceedings this Board must answer affirmatively the question, earlier posed, of whether the employer was acting reasonably when it concluded, on the basis of the events of September 21-22, that the future employment pursuits of the grievor were not likely to prove to be positive. In these proceedings, the grievor has offered additional evidence which even more strongly attests-to likelihood of that eventuality. Accordingly this Board is not inclined to interfere with the employer's judgement and hereby denies this grievance. Dated at Toronto This 6th Day of September 1977 0. M. Beatty Chairman _ A. Fortier Member I, H. Weisbach Member