Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-0254.Nixon.81-05-13254179 1N THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATON Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Phyllis~3. Nixon Griever and The Crown in Right of Ontario Miniswy of Community & Social Services Employer Before: For the Crievor: E. 8. Jolliffe, Q.C. K. W. Preston M. Perri:l - Vice-Chairman - Member - LMember iM. Pratt, Grievance afficer Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: R. XicCully, Solicitor !Ministry of Community & Social Services ifearing: September !2, 1980, Toronto January 28, 29, 30, 198 1, Thunder Bay ; -2- . Ms. Phyllis J Nixon has grieved against dismissal from her post as a counsellor at the Northwestern Regional Centre, the mental retardation unit within the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital maintained by the LMinistry of Community and Social Services at Thunder Bay. This case came on for hearing at Toronto on September 12, 1980. At that time only two witnesses were heard. Because all other witnesses reside at Thunder Bay the hearing was adjourned to be continued there in November. It was again adjourned sine die however (at the request of the bargaining agent) by reason of the griever’s illness and hospitalization. In the result 13 other witnesses and the arguments of counsel were heard at Thunder Bay on January 28, 29 and 30, 1981. Reasons for dismissal were stated in a letter to the griever dated August 24, 1979, from Father 3. A. Rice, Director of the Centre. It was as Fallowing the Meeting held August 24, 1979, at LO:00 hours in Northwestern Regional Centre, at which you were present, I do not find any mitigating circumstances, facts or information to refute the allegation that you physically abused a resident of Northwestern Regional Centre on August 10, 1979. The information provided at this Meeting indicates that you did use onwarranted and/or inappropriate physical force on a resident, on August 10, 1979, resulting in physical injury to the resident. This action on your part conforms to the Definition of Abuse, in Personnel Directive #M.R. 17: “Abuse has been defined as the unwarranted and/or inappropriate use of physical force, pyschological stress or sexual involvement L.“. Personnel Directive #M.R. 17, Section N states: “Any employee wbo &sues a resident will be dismissed unless there are circumstances which justify the provision of a lesser penalty.” -3- Since I am uMble to find any mitigating circumstances, facts or information to warrant a lesser penalty, I am herewith dismis- sing you- from employment as a Residential Counsella U at Northwe+m Regional Centre, effective August 24, 1979. This action is made under authority of Section 22 (3) of the Public Service Act, and under Delegated Authority contained in Personnel Directive #30, June 1, 1979. It is your right to grieve this decision within 20 days as outlined in the Collective Agreement on Working Conditions. The griever denies, that she used “unwarran ted and/or inappropriate physical force a\ a resident” at any time, and she has stated in her testimony that “anyone who abuses a patient should be fired immediately.” The “resident” referred to was Sirrka Sunni, a young woman in her early thirties who has been a patient at the Centre for some years. It appears that in childhood she was not retarded and altnough her first language was Finnish she actually reached Grade 10 at school. However, the medical evidence is that due to epilepsy and other ailments in adolescence she suffered brain damage and became almost completely deaf. Thus communication with her is extremely difficult, even though she has certain elements of a normal intelligence and holds a part-time job (under supervision) in the laundry at the Centre. AU witnesses agree that she is a co-operative resident who‘gives no trouble to counsellors except for a tendency to be very slow and deliberate in her habits. , At the hearing held ins Thunder Bay it was suggested that evidence relating to Sirrka Sunni’s version of the incident on August 10, 1979, could bereceived by the Board. She had been questioned (shortly after August 10) by Ms. Shawn Fenlon, a speech and language pathologist (who knew her .i. ,. .:.!,.!( ..: (f< .:: __ ..,’ ,. :..I .,; _~ .-._ -4- well) in the presence of two supervisors and two police officers. However, -Us. Fenlcn had really ac’ted as an interpreter, attempting to convey to Sirrka Sunni by various means the substance of questions formulated by Mr. Paul Christianson, a psychologist who is Regional Program Director at the Centre. According to Ives. Fenlon, the patient “has no .Q-rea&g comprehension at all, I’ and it is obvious that although she may have understood why she was being questioned; she could not grasp the full meaning of the questions. In any event, there is no record of the questions suggested by Mr. Christianson and of course no record (apart from Ms. Fenlon’s memory) of what Sirrka Sunni was ,attempting to convey in reply. After giving counsel an opportunity to cite law on the point and after overnight consideration the Board decided that such “evidence” was not . admissible. It is not in dispute that an incident occurred as between the grievn and Sirrka Sunni on the night of August 10, 1979. However, as to what actually occurred there is a’serious conflict between the testimony of the griever and that of the only eye-witness, Ms. Susan Catcher. The two versions must be compared. As to what occurred in the immediate aftermath of the incident. i.e. within the next hour, there were three other witnesses. Their evidence is relevant and casts some light on the credibility of the griever and the eye-witness. The three other witnesses were: Ms. ,Mariella Small, a counsellor who, was on duty that night in the same ward with the griever and ,Ms. Catcher, ,M’r. Robert Lawson, the supervisor called in from another ward; EMS. Judith IM. Toal R.N. (formerly Judith Owens) the nurse . ; ‘L.’ :;, : ‘, : ‘:;-: : .’ I : . ; . . -~. ._ -5- summoned m attend Sirrka Sunni after it was discovered that she had ~a bump on her head. The evidence of the eye-witness and the grievor concerning the incident itself is as follows. IMS. Susan Catcher, a university student, worked at the Centre as a counsellor (casual) in the summers of 1978 and 1979. On August 10, 1979, she worked in Ward 18 with the griever and Ms. Mariella Small, another counsellor with several years of experience. The griever had been designated as the counsellor in charge of the ward for that shift with custody of the keys to the medicine cabinet. :Ms. Catcher was the first witness to testify at the Board’s initial hearing in Toronto on September 12, 1980. The substance of her version is to be found in Exhibit 7. This was a report she wrote (at the request of I&. Larson, Assistant Residential Supervisor) probably about an hour after the incident. The full text of that report appears below: Aug. 10179 1 was standing in front of the lunch room and Suni was the only one in the lunch room dririking her juice and eating her cookie and Phylis went into the lunch room grabbed Suni’s juice and cookie out of her hand and throw it in the garbage. Then Phylis took Suni by the back of the neck and got her out of her chair and pushed her hard towards the door, and Suni hit the side of the door frame bumped her head and bounced back in front of Phylis, then Phylis grabbed her again and gave her anothei push so she would go through the door and she did this time. She came falling in my arms so I directed her down rhe hallway BJ bed. Then later found a bump on her head because she was holding her head going down the hallway. Phylis went home for her supper break for 1 hr. and came back with the smell of alchol’on her breath. She was also on and off the ward .---. .-. ..~. --- -- -6- all evening. The accident happened around 9:00 after medi- cation or 2100 hn. Susan Catcher IB 6ignaturd In her testimony Ms. Catcher explained that there were about 20 residents in Ward 18, they were given supper around 5 P.M., some had baths or watched TV thereafter, they received prescribed medication from the grievor or Ms. Small and gathered shortly before bedtime in a small room beside the office where records, charts and the medicine cabinet are kept. As usual, they were then given a “snack,” consisting of hot chocolate or juice and cookies; when they were finished, all went off m bed except Sirrka Sunni, who was very slow with her juice and cookies. At this point,the witness said, Sirrka Sunni was forcibly compelled by the grievor to leave the room. She went down the hall toward her dormitory, but the witness soon found her sitting in the day room, holding her head. Ms. Small examined it and found a bump. The witness told Ms. Small what had happened at the door of the “lunch room” and they informed the grievor, who left without looking at the bump. Mr. Lawson, their supervisor, was then called from another ward. The griever’s version is quite different. She testified that Sirrka Sunni was sitting in the lunch room with a “quarter glass” of juice and a cookie and talking to the wall. The griever’s testimony continued: “I said to her ‘it’s be&y-bye time’ - she lip reads very well --- and I put tfer juice and cookie in the garbage, made sights and ,...,. ~ .:. :. I pointed to bed. 1 grabbed her pyjamas amI shook them. 1 may have pushed her to get her going. Susan told me I couldn’t take her food away and force tier m.bed. Susan glabbed my arm --- very cross. I can’t recall anything out of the ordinary as she went out of the room.” The griever also said: “On many -ions I’ve had to huch her. She can be very stubborn at times. It’s not necessary to apply force. She’s quiet, not aggressive. Sometimes we wriggle her chair and put hands under her arms when she’s sitting staring at an empty tray.......others touch patient3 too.” In cross-examination the griever said that Sirrka Sunni, sitting alone in the lunch-room was “talking to both waIIs and haIIucinating:..... I took her collar and shook apad signed. 1 think she. had one cookie and a Styrofoam cup. 1 think 1 had to speak to her twice..;.. She didn’t react to the 10s of the cookie.” t. The grievor denied she had’ touched the residept’s neck “at any time.” She said she disagreed with the Catcher testimony, which of course she had heard. According to the griever, ushering out the door was not being forceful. As to the disc&ery of the bump on Sirrka Sunni’s head, the griever said “when Small reported the bump I did not hear h& at that time.” -8- Evidence concerning events following immediately after the incident must now be reviewed. EMS. Small had left the lunch-room with most residents and was seeing them safely into -bed. However, Ms. Catcher spoke to her and they then found Sirrka Sunni sitting alone in the day-room, apparently in some distress. <Ms. Small examined the young woman’s head and saw a “lump~V on the left side. She then called the griever “from the girls’ wash-room. She said something and walked away. I wasn’t sure what to do. Susan said she’d report it the next day. 1 said that wouldn% be right, I’d do it and then 1 called Mr. Lawson from accog the hail.” After &Mr. Lawson returned with the griever, there was some discussion between the four in the vicinity of the office. -M!. Lawson asked Phyllis to make an accident report. She refused, so he asked Susan ta report, which she did. Phyllis watched Susan doing it and said ‘I’d sure like to see you sign your name to that .’ I heard her telling Mr. Lawson that Susan was a fat slob and attacking my religious views.” In cross-examination ,&Is. Small said she was not sure of the exact words the griever used when refusing to write a’report. .Mr. Robert Lawson, Assistant Residential Supervisor, had been employed at the Centre since 1964. On the night of August 1!,1979, he was responsible for four wards in Pavilion I and three in Pavilion 3. He makes rounds of all wards but could usually be found in Ward IA. He was -Y- there when (Ms. Small came to report an accident, and he responded at once. By this time Sirrka Sunni was in bed. Ms. Small told him the griever had been informed but left. Mr. Lawson earlier that evening had seen the griever in Ward IC, ‘so he went to IC and found her there again. He assumed she was on a coffee-break. On being asked by Mr. Lawson “to come to the office,” the griever said “Just a minute -- I’d like to have it said to me in front of witnesses.” He then asked her to “get the nurse and report it.” According to him, she replied that since there were others there they could do it. He repeated his request, reminding her that she was “ii charge.” She went to 18 and notified the nurse, Miss Owens (as she then was) who soon arrived on the scene. LMr. Lawson also testified: 1 asked her to say what occurred. She said she wouldn’t put her name on any statement.” He added that the grievor Yvas calling the staff names --- she mentioned Small’s beliefs and denounced Susan far sleeping on the night shift. ST cried. I told Ms. Nixon to stop.” At about IO:30 P.M. the griever asked for her lunch break. Mr. Lawson told her to go, not knowing that she had taken her lunch break much earlier in the evening. However, she did not actually go again. Mr. Lawson said he reported on the matter that night to Mr. Paul Christianson, the Program Director. - 10 - In cross-examination, iMr. Lawson agreed he heard the grievor deny that she had “pushed” Sirrka Sunni, but she had refused to write a report to that effect. He could not recall Catcher or Small saying anything to upset the grievor. At the request of counsel f,or the griever t&o written reports by Mr. Lawsm were produced. This report of August 10, Exhibit 10, is hand-written. His other report, Exhibit 9, is dated September 9, 1980, and merely summarizes the evidence he expected to give. Nothing in either report is inconsistent with what he said as a witness on January 28, 1981. The next participant on the night of August 10 was the nurse, Judith Owens (now Toal), who testified at the September hearing in Toronto. Her account, very clearly rendered, was as follows. About 9~30 P.M. she was called to I0 by the grievor, who said Sirrka Sunni had bumped her head. She went to IB at once and the griever accompanied her to the dormitory.~ IMs. Small and zUs. Catcher were aleady there. The grievor said “there was nothing re+y wrong with her --- she just bumped her head.” The girl was rubbing her head and crying. “I asked the other three to stop talking while I examined her.” On verifying the existence of a “contusion” on the left side of the head --- with no skin broken --- the nurse satisfied herself that Sirrka’s blood pressure and pulse were normal. She decided that it was not - II - necessary to call in a doctor but that the resident should be kept under observation for a couple of hours. She made Sirrka get up and sit in the day-room with (Ms. Small to watch TV --- “just to ensure there was no internal bleeding.... n The nurse then went to the ward office with Mr. Lawson and the grievor. There she pulled the Sirrka Sunni file and wrote for the record an accident and injury report (Exhibit 8). There are four separate entries, all signed “Owens R.N.“, as follows: Aug. 10179 @ 2215 HRS - Contusion sustained to frontal scalp above Lt. Ear when bumped head on wall ledge. Appears to be quite alert. 22QO HRS - Vital signs P-88 R-24 BP 1701104. Bumo palpable through hair. Resident kept, up far observation, patching TV in day-mom. 2300 HRS - Resident sitting up in day-room appears to be quite alert. Rubbing bump intermittently. Pupils equal and reacting briskly. P-90 R-28 BP 126/92. Left up sitting until shift change for observation. 2330 HRS - Settled to bed for the night. HIR appears satisfactory presently. The nurse also said that while she was at the office (Ms. Small and ~MS. Catcher “came up from the day-room and there were words re Susan’s Story.“.. Ms. Nixon said the students were just there to raise shit. Mr. Lawson was listening.... Lawson and I discussed it. W,e thought something should be done. He asked for reports. Susan complied. Ms. Nixon refused.” - - 12- . In cross-examination the nurse said the injury “was not the worst case I’ve seen, but not exactly minor. Have to watch it.” Referring to the scene at the resident’s bedside, the nurse said an argument went on outside the room, Ms. Nixon said %he bumped her head.” When she had been called, however, there was “an air of urgency” about it, Tome now” were the words used. The nurse had ordinarily seen Sirrka Sunni about four times a week and knew her well. It was possible she might disobey an order, “but I’ve never known her to.” She was in Ward 18 as a “high-functioning” resident, not obviously retarded, “a quiet little girl, not a problem... She smiles. I found her co-operative. She walks normally and I’m not aware of any balance problem...& A lovable person.” When nurse Owens went off duty about midnight she was succeeded by another nurse, Ms. Jo Ann Haroun, who kept Sirrka Sunni under regular observation for the rest of the night, watching for any change in vital signs. It now becomes necessary to recall the testimony of the griever in relation to what transpired between the incident (which occurred at about 9 P.M.) and the end of the shift at 11:30 PM. It is rather different’from the version reported by Ms. Catcher, ,Ms. Small, Mr. Lawson and the nurse. J - 13- Asked why she refused to write a report, the grievor said: ‘1 didn’t feel that I wanted to sign my name to anything. Because it was Lawson and experience on previous occasions.” Under cross-examination, she could not recall asking Mr. Lawson at IO:30 P.M. for a “supper break.” As for the conversation with Mr. Lawson in the coffee-room in Ward 1C she could not explain why she would have some protection if others there heard the conversation. She denied refusing to call the nurse, although Mr. Lawson’s version was that he had to ask her ‘three times.” Instead, “I called her within minutes and she did the accident reports.... I guess it was Lawson who asked me what had happened. To me, nothing out of the ordinary had happened.” On being reminded of testimony given by the nurse, the grievor said: “It could have happened that we had words in the presence of Owens and Lawson.” Apart from the witnesses already mentioned, the only person who testified in respect of the injury suffered by Sirrka Sunni was Dr. John Albert Moore *ho was, he said, “in effect the family physician” for all residents at the Centre and also patients at the Lakehead Piychiaaic Hospital, with which the Cenee is connected. For some time, he had made regular physical examinations of Sirrka Sunni and knew her well. At the request of Father J. A. Rice, Director of the Centre, Dr. -- --- _-_-~..- ~. ._--.-__. -.,._ ~.A~_.. ..__ I i., ~-1 lMoore conducted a special examination of Sirrka Sunni one Monday, August 13. She had also been examined and x-rayed the previous day. He found a contusion on the head about 7 c.m. above the left ear. It was a “tender area” about 3 c.m. in diameter, with slight swelling, and seemed two or three days old. He saw no break in the skin, no evidence of bleeding and no discoloration. “She didn’t have any pain unless I pressed the area. He concluded that no follow-up was needed. In cross-examination Dr. Moore said: “Yes, it was a bump on the head, tiansient in nature.” In m-examination he said he thought her co-ordination was excellent and that she had “proper ctmtrol of her movements.” Dr. LMoore’s other testimony related to her medical history, her handicaps and the ability-to hold a part-time job in which he said she took pride. From all the evidence described above, it emerges clearly that this Board must decide which of two versions is closer to the truth: that of the griever or that of Ms. Susan Catcher. Before doing so reference must be made to certain events on August 10 prior to’9 P&i. The griever came on duty about 3:30 P.M. on August 10. Several witnesses have testified that she acted in a belligerent manner throughout the shift. It is also clear from the evidence, including her own testimony, that she was absent from her duties much of the time between 3:30 P.M. and 9 P.M. One of her functions as the counsellor in charge of lb was to administer medication at 4 P.M. and 8 P.iM. She postponed the former - 15- because she was trying to reach her mother by telephbne. She did give medication, however, about 6 P.,M. (after the residents had their supper) then handed the keys to EMS. Small and went home without signing out. There is a rule against this, but the griever asserts it has never been enforced. According to her, she, was away about 45 minutes. After returning she did not take part in giving baths or attending to the other needs of residents. Instead she visited the’coffee room of 1C where .Vr. f Lawson noticed her some time before 9 P.M. She said it was a common practice to visit friends in other wards, even for an hour or more, and she candidly described it as “loitering.” She denied having any alcohol that evening but said she was upset about personal problems. During the supper period -- between 4:45 P.M. and 6 P.M., a certain incident caused distress to other employees at the Centre. There was a girl named Anna in Ward 1B who had behavioural problems including reluctance to obey orders. She was late in going down to supper and the griever decided she should get nothing to eat. As the grievor has conceded, this was contrary to the rules of the Centre. The griever had acknowledged in writing, Exhibit 17, having read the Centre’s “Procedure for Use of Behaviourai Modification Programs” issued in December, 1978, including Procedure #I4 and its .Appendix A, part of Exhibit 16, which expressly stated (under its definition of techniques termed “behavibur modification”) as follows: Examples of inappropriate and incorrect use of such te&nic@es would be: . . . . ..I)............... (b) withholding or withdrawing food which is part of a regular ineal. --.._ 4 i, # - 16 - Nevertheless, the griever claims that with a girl like ,Anna it was often necessary for herself and others to withhold a meal. The grievw in her testimony made clear that it was one of,her techniques for “behaviour modification,” whether or not authorized by the Centre. There were times, she said, when Vhere was no other recourse” in dealing with misbehaviour. In Anna’s case, the loss of supper disturbed Mrs. Dorothy PetroLsan. the Senior Food Supervisor, who spoke to Ms. Small about it. They smuggled some food upstairs for Anna. Mrs. Petrossan also said that during the supper hour “Phyllis Nixqn seemed agitated and was shwting at the patients.” She admitted that on other occasions she had seen other staff members deprive patients of meals in the cafeteria “for throwing food anxmd oc bothering other people.‘! According to the griever “it% been done on every ward with Anna by different staff.” She did not deny that later in the evening she also deprived Anna of the bedtime snack, explaining that “if you don’t have s.upger you don’t get the sn&~” This she described as a “ruling.” The griever’s attitude toward rules was also illustrated by the following statement in her testimony: “We’re supped to count the medicine on every change-over, but it was never done. It‘s a rule, but none of us ever did it..... I’ve been on every ward at one time or another.” Mr. Pratt, representing the griever, informed the Board that Ms. Nixon had been tried on a certain charge resulting from the incident of .‘,. *.,. . - 17 - August 10, that she had been acquitted, that the acquittal had been upheld on appeal and that a further appeal by the Crown was pending. That, however, was a criminal proceeding in which a heavy burden of proof lay on the prosecutor. The proceeding before this Board is not a criminal proceeding but one under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. Factual issues may therefore be decided on the balance of probabilities, as in a civil proceeding, and it is the duty of this Board to do so on the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties. Having heard, reviewed and considered testimony given by seven witnesses, including the griever, in respect of events on the evening of August 10, 1979, this Board is obliged to find that the evidence of an eye-witness, Ms. Susan Catcher, is closer to the truth than the version advanced by the griever. This finding is inescapable, having regard to what was said by the witnesses, having regard also to the way in which they said it, their demeanour and the degree to which they seemed to testify with candour, and further having regard to the surrounding circumstances during the hours between 4 P..M. and midnight. Our conclusion must be that the griever did in fact use unwarranted and inappropriate physical force in compelling Sirrka Sunni to leave the “lunch-room’, and that physical injury to the resident was the result. As often said, the staff at a facility such as the Northwestern Regional Centre have a special responsibility for the welfare of children ;:.:,*+ ’ .” ‘Y,. ’ , . . . .,:.. i:, : .: . ‘.’ - 18- and adults entrusted to their care. After all, such inmates are in the facility fw the very reason that they are incapable of caring~ for themselves, and some of them, like Sirrka Sunni, are not even capable of speaking for themselves. Our conclusion therefore must be, in view of humanitarian considerations as well as the requirements of the law as set out by subsection (3a) in Section 18 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining a, that by her treatment of Sirrka Suni the griever demonstrated she is not eligible for employment as a counsellor in a “facility” such as the Northwestern Regional Centre. The remaining question is that of mitigation. The Board is of the opinion that in this case dismissal was the appropriate penalty for the excessive and indeed improper use of force against a resident. Under the aforesaid subsection (3a) in Section 18 of the Act it is open to the Board to “provide for the employment of tie employee in another substantkdly equivalent positicm,” something which should only be done if circumstances warrant, such as a good record and the apparent potential ‘for useful service in a different capacity. Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the griever has a consistently good record. There is a history of “progressive diiciphe”, including a number of warnings and finally in February, 1977, a dismissal, . c’ _.-’ i .~- -IV- later reduced by the Ministry to a suspension for six weeks. In fairness, It must be pointed out that the record is free of any unfavourable note during the period between August 19, 1978, and August 9, 1979, a period of almost one year. Further, some of the griever’s appraisals in earlier years were favourable, stating that the quality of her work was “exceUenP, then “good” and later “average”. This was confirmed by several witnesses who said she worked well on the day shift but were somewhat critical of her work at night and particularly of her attendance and punctuality as well as her attitude to colleagues. The appraisal of November 1, 1977, called for improvement in relations with other staff members and suggested that she be less negative in her comments on management and its policies. She responded to these criticisms by writing that she disagreed “whole-heartedlyy” and believed no staff member would say she was not easy to get along with. Nevertheless there had been formal written complaints from other staff members that she made slanderous or insulting statements to them or about them. Further, there is considerable evidence that she sometimes came to work at night smelling of alcohol. It is worthy of note that the grievor does not admit having had real problems with alcohol. She feels, as she put it, that she “did not drink any more than other people.” In two mandatory referrals she denied 5eing an alcoholic and took the position that she did not know why she had been referred. As for her voluntary admission to the Smith Clinic in September, 1977, she said it was mainly to find out how the Clinic functioned and why her personal life had taken an unsatisfactory course. She did not participate in the Clinic’s after-care program because she thought it i. - 20 - unnecessary ard could cope with the problem herself, if there was a problem. According to her, she very rarely drank alcohol thereafter. It is clear, however, that her four-week sojourn at the Clinic was not entirely successful. She continues to attribute her misfortunes, including frequent absenteeism over a 12-year period, to %ress”, an unhappy past and persord problems.” Evidence about the grievor’s record was given by the following: Ms. Jo-Ann Haroun, a nurse; Ms. Shirley Gilbert, a counsellor recently promoted; Mr. Michael Panasyk, the supervisor of 1B prior to 1979; Sister Sharon Miller, a counselfor at the Smith Clinic in St. Lloseph’s Hospital; Mr. DE. Coutts, Regional Personnel ‘Manager for the [Ministry; Father John A. . Rice, Director of- the Centre, and (in reply) <Mr. Paul Christianson, Regional Program Director. Much of the evidence related not only to discipline but to a series of efforts to help the grievor solve personal and financial problems and to help her overcome certain difficulties management thought were related to alcoholism. The grievor’s record from 1965 to 1979 is set out with particularity in a document agreed to by the parties as a “Statement of Facts,” to which are attached 44 exhibits, all but one of which have been accepted as authentic, although Mr. Pratt, representing OPSEU and the griever reserved the right to challenge the relevance of such exhibits. 5 The Board does not find it necessary to review in detail the wealth of evidence relating to the employment record of the grievor and ---, . .__--.--- _ I rr. - 21 - . her relations with management and other staff members. Her own explanations of such matters were not persuasive and diverged in many ways from the testimony of all other witnesses. This is not to suggest that her answers were consciously dishonest but rather that she may have developed habiis of deceiving herself as to the realities of her own behaviour, particularly in relations with management and her colleagues as well as with patients at the Centre. In all the circumstances this Board is regretfully unable to find it appropriate or proper to provide by this decision that the griever should be employed in a different capacity. The grievance therefore fails and the dismissal of the grievor must be upheld. Finally, the Board wishes to express its appreciation of the careful, conscientious and responsible work done by Gs.. McCulley and Mr. Pratt in the preparation and presentation of this difficult case. In particular, they must be commended fw their detailed written statement of the undisputed facts --- without which the hearing would have lasted much longer. It is an example which could well be followed by other parties appearing before the aoard. DATED at Toronto this 13th day of b\ay, 1981 &N&b t) JOlllfIe, Q.L. Vice-Lnalrman . . I concur w rreston . . 1 concur 41. Ferrm Memoer LMemoer