HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-0156.Sproule.81-03-30IN THE MATTER OF. AN ARBITRATION
Under,The
CROWN EMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: Mr. D. Sproule
and
Griever
The Crown in Right of Ontario
The Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Employer
Before: M. Teplitsky; Q.~C. - Vice-Chairman
M. Gibb - Member
S:R. Hennessy - Member
For the Griever: A. M. Heisey, Counsel
W. Ross Hitch & Associates
For the Employer: P. Moran, Counsel
Hicks, Morley, Hamilton d( Storey
Hearing: March 27, 1981
: -2- .
We have ,heard all of the evidence and the representations of the
parties. It appears to US that 7 days is too severe a suspension in the light
of the following factor&
(1) Innocent absenteeism was considered in deciding a
penalty and should not have been.
(2) The letter of suspension creates the impression on
any objective reader that the suspension related in
part to May 4, 1978. It is conceded that he was
absent for good and sufficient reason on May 4.
(3) The original letter of suspension is confusing and
could reasonably have led the grievw to believe
that he was suspended for May 3rd as well as May +ul.
But for the following factors, an even smaller suspension than we
propose would have been in order:
(1). The grievor did not offer an explanation when he had
the opportunity.
(2) As to the incident of May 2nd, if the griever believed
he had been suspended he shouId have said so before this
day.
(3) The griever “lost hi cool” and left without making any
effort to resolve the ambiguity in the letter of May 3rd.
In the result, we reduce the suspension to 3 days and direct that
his record be rectified to disclose that for the incidents of May 2nd and
May 3rd, in totality, a suspension of 3 days was imposed.
One final matter: We hesitate to comment on practices based on
the evidence in this case alone. Yet, it does appear that consideration
should be given to clarify these one day managerial suspensions which are
really not suspensions in f.act, but statements by the manager of a problem
he considers worthy of discipline. There may be cases where it is
: -3- I
appropriate to suspend summarily.
Lastly, it may be unsound to threaten a suspension for having the
smell of alcohol on one’s breath as Mr. Meldium did. We have no doubt
that an employee ought not to permit his breath to smell of alcohol during
wor~king hours. However, the odour can be removed without a suspension.
DATED this 30th day of March, 1981. -. .:
M. Teplitsky, Q.C.
Vice-Chairman
I concur
Mary Gibb
Member
I concur
S. R. Hennessy
Member