Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0177.Jokinen.83-04-19I;i THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATIOX Under THE CROW EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE: BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearings: CUPE (Helka Jokinen) Griever - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (The Workmen's Compensation Board) Employer E.B. Jolliffe, Q.C. -Vice Chairman S.D. Kaufman Member G. Peckham Member H. Jokinen (for herself) C.G. Riggs,~ Counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart P; Storie Sarristers 8: Solicitors February 23;' 19S3 hlarch 22, 19S3 - 2 - DECISIO~N Mrs. aelka Jokinen was dismissed by The ivorkmen's Compensation Eoard by letter dated November 17, 1980, and received on November 20, dismissal to take effect November 14. In short, the reasons given'were.absenteeism, lateness and unacceptable work performance. On November 20 she filed a grievance alleging that she had been unjustly terminated. In March , ~1981, her grievance was.referred to arbitration by her Union, the Canadian Union Of Public Employees, Local 1750, but on November 8, 1982, the Registrar was advised that it would "not represent Mrs. Jokinen in her grievance should she wish, it to be heard by the Grievance Settlement aoard." Shortly thereafter she wrote the Registrar askir.g that her t. grievance be heard. At the hearings h&ld on F.ebruary 23 and March 22, 1983, the grieibr represented herself and the Employer was represented by courisel, which created certain difficulties for- both parties as well as this panel of the soard. In her grievance, Mrs. Jokinen desc~ribed herself as "Sr. Stenographer" in the Vocational Rehabilitation Division, Support Services Seetion, and asked~.for reinstatement as "S:. Stenographer." In Exhibit 1, the current collective agreement - 3 - we do not find any classification listed as "Sr. Stenographa:" or "Senior Stenographer." The evidence on this point is not complete, but we deduce that actually she was in 1980 a "Sten- ographer" at the Salary Grade 004, and that prior to her pro- motion in 1979 she was a "Senior Typist" at Salary Grade~003 in the "Clerical & Administrative Salary Scale" set out by Schedule It is necessary to review the history of the griever's experience wit h The Workmen's Compensation 3oard and previous employers. The evidence relates to five different periods: (1) Experience with Previous Employers; (2) The Period from July 25, 1977, when (according to the dateeof hiring'~shown on her grievance) Mrs. Jokinen was first employed by the 3oard, to early 1979; (3).The Period in 1979 when she was supervised by Mr. George Jones; (4) The Period from July 9 to December 18, 1979, when she was supervised by Ms. Maurqen McLel.lan., and (5) _; The Period from Gecember 21, 1979 in a unit supervised by 41s. Pat Lennie, >until November, 1930, when she was dismiss~ed. (11 Previous Empl~oyment - The griever testified that she.has had 17 years of i - 4 - office experience, during much of which she worked as a medical secretary. She claims she had "no trouble" with previous em- ployers and offered as evidence a letter dated July 4, 1977, Exhibit 26, from Dr. Leon Bloom, N.D., F.R.C.S. (Cl which is as follows: .' - Mrs. Jokinen was employed by me for nearly one year and I found her to be extremely capable and conscientious. l&s. Jokinen had an excellent rapport with the patients and was very courteous to members of the medical profession. I feel Mrs. Joktien is an excellent medical secretary. The griever also tendered as Exhibit 27 an undated, testimonial from Director J.A. Morton of Sunnybrook hospital: tis. H. Jokinen was employed by Sunnybrook hospital Uni- versity of Toronto Clinic as a medical secretary in our Stencg- raphic Services. Fast of her service was in our Cut Patient Crthopaedic Offices. Ihis psition,entailed the transcription of all medical , legal and Workmen's Ccmwnsation Poard reprts for several doctcrs. Pericdically she replaced the nurse- receptionist, answering inquiries, making appoint;nents, billing and completing and filing patient charts. She is fully versed il all phases of medical terminole land is a diligent korker. Mrs. Jokinen prformed 3% years of capabie~&rk prior to her resignation. The griever claims that during such experience she -r acouired an e-xcellent command of medical terminology and -5- spelling. She had attended high school in Finland and Canada graduating from Grade 12 after four years in "commercial," and started work as a medical secretary in 1966. (2) Early Experience with the W.C.9. - ..~. The Employer offered no evidence about the grievor's record from her hiring date, July 25, 1977, to April, 1979. Of that period, little or nothing was said by the grievor but she produced as Exhibit 29, a letter from Mr. D.K. 3urke (who was apparently with ~the W.C.B. at one time) dated May S, 1982, as follows: Yrs. Helka Joktien worked for me from July 1977 to December 1978 as a secretary in general office. During that cericd, her prformance in typing, filing and telephone reception was of a good quality. She left this msition for a more &al:enging job elsewhere. 13) January, 1979 to July, 1979 - : The "more challenging job elsewhere" seems to have been. with Mr. George Jones, an Administrator of Vocational .Rehabilitation Services at the Downsview Eospital maintained by the W.C.B. He was called as a witness by t;he Employer's counsel. Mr. Jones did not criticize the quality of the griever's work, which required thee transcription of casettes dictated by Rehabilitation Counsellors. However, he was obliged to find fault with her attendance record. On May 16, 1979, he wrote her on the subject of "Lateness," Exhibit 5, as follows: This will oonfirm our discussion relative to Lhis subject which took place in my office on 'Eesday, April 24, 1979. Wing the month of April 1979, which represents a total of~l9 wxkbg days, you were late on 11 occasions and absent for 2 days. Your lateness on April 6th ard 9th was understandable because of severe weather conditions. Curing,the Feriod May 1 - 15, 1979 tiich represents a pried of 11 GXjrkll7g days, you have 'been late on 7 occasions. AS mentioned to you, your record of lateness is of grave concern and I expzt to see an immediate and continuing ~improvement in this record. Your arrival times each day will continue to De mchitor& and -will again be reviewed in the near future. Please govern yourself accordingly. Notwithstanding Mr. Jones' admcnitions, her lateness, according to his testimony "stayed much the same throughout." Her hours were supposed to be from 8.15 a.m. to 4.15 p.m., but Exhibit 6 shows that on 18 occasions betweenApril 6 and Xay 15 (during which there were only 25 working days) she was lat2 by eight minutes or more, sometimes as much as 20 or even 30 ." m 1 n u t e s '. - 7 - The gri ever does not complain of her relations with Mr. Jones. Instead, she has said that he was "very fair." She gave various reasons for being late 18 times out of 25, but for most there is no record of any reason being given. On one occasion she reported being 30 minutes late due to traffic, congestion .after an accident; on another she simply : : said. she had "slept in." (4) July, 1979 to December, 1979 In July, 1979, the grievor won a promotion, which she now says was a "mistake" on her part. She was supposed to have a 60-day trial, but actually stayed more than five months, working or training to be one of 26 medical secretaries who do typing, filing, and organizing work-load for physicians in the Rehabilitation Division. The supervisor, Ms. McLellan, has testified that the griever's terminology was acceptable but productivity was "exiremely low." About 16 typed pages, single-spaced, were needed each day, but the grievor averaged only five or six. The grievor, Ms. McClellan said, had explained she was "bored wi,th typing" and she was therefore moved to various positions, getting a trial with several different doctors. interviewed about productivity, the go 1evor -a- said she was "doing the best she could." The supervisor was fl0t satisfied and told the grievor in September that she would have to leaver the Department, although not immediately. Ms. McLellan was also concerned about the grievor's habitual lateness. There was an interview about it as early as. July 23. Between that date and August 24, the grievor was recorded as being late on 16 working days. Absences wer:: not excessive that summer, but the grievor stayed away from work on September 10, 11 and 12. According to Ms. HcLellan, she said "I gave her a migraine headache because of the termination." On October 19 Ms. McLellan gave the grievor a menor- andum, Exhibit 7, beginning as follows: This is, to advise you that your.:attitude zrd conduct towards the responsibilities of your position in this Department are unacceptable. Lateness persists, md your total absent- eexm s=we Joining cur Depar'ment is excessive. The last paragraph sounded a warning: Should either problem prsist, strorg disciplinary action may have tobe taken, which could possibly incl.ude such actions as suspension, or termination. -9- Further warning was given in writing,&hibit 8, after a conversation on November 21. It concluded as follows: I will reiterate, lateness is still unacceptable. This memo therefore will serve as a warning, should this problem recur in the future, without an acceptable explanation, disciplinary action will be taken, r;nich could possibly include suspension, or termination. Nevertheless, according tp Exhibit 9, during the next three weeks, i.e. between November 22 and December 14, the grievor was recorded as being late on 12 working days. (5) December, 1979, to November, 1980 On December 21, 1979, the grievor was transferred to a different location and a different type of work. This was in the Support Services Section at the Board's head offices, 2 Bloor Street East, Toronto. AES word-processors were being installed for a complement of 20 stenographers under the super- vision of MS. Pat Lennie, the only~witness called for the Employer to testify about the grievor's performance during the ensuing 11 months. The griever's immediate supervisor (known as a "Group LeadeL ""1 Xs. Gloria Carscallen, was not called to : - 10 - testify. MS. Lennie had assumed her responsibilities in July, 1979, but she testified that acceptable performance on the AES machines was "usually reached in less than two weeks." MS. Lennie's knowledge of performance was based on interviews with the grievor, direct observation (somewhat limited by the scope of Ms. Lennie's responsibliities) the __;,_;_ report of the Group Leader, detailed records of daily production and numerous "late slips" filed by the grievor with the Branch secretary, Exhibit 23. Ms. Lennie's testimony may besummar- ized as follows: .- There was an "orientation period" from December 21, 1979, to January 9, 1980. Thereafter, the grievor attended a three-day training session onthe dES machines, conducted by AES representatives. On returning, the grievor was given some "manual" work and started the "real work" about a veek later. The grievo r's AES production was considerably lower than the average production of others, and she was freguently late, for which she was counselled and given 'a series of written warnings. In March, June, July, September and October she re- ceived suspensions and on tiovember 6 the griever was suspended indefinite,ly. No suspension was grieved. When spoken.to - 11 - (according to Iys. Lennie) the grievor's attitude was "one of indifference." Operators made their own "line count" of pro- duction on the AES machines; the grievor's average daily production was consistently between 50 and 60 per cent of the group's average. In Augusf the griever received further training by AES. From time to time she had been given "other work" to do. The witness said: "I tried to find reasons for ,.the trouble but I was unable to detect the.root cause." In cross-examination Ms. -Lennie said the grievor' "indicated she didn't like typing all day." 'S~he had given'the griever a.card showing th,e name of a "Vocational Counsellor," the reason being that the grievor seemed to be interested in a transfer. Referring to absences inJanuary, February and March, Ms. Lennie said she had no reason to believe they were illegitimate. For much of April the griever was used on "spl.itting work," in which she showed some interest and skill.. She was observed from time to time leaving her d~e.sk to make telephone calis. There are a number of exhibits identified by Ms. Lennie which relate to the grievor's Ferformance and attendance. - 12 - On February 8. 1980, the griever was given a memor- andum headed "rWor!k Performance," Exhibit 11. it criticized the quality of her work, said that her output was far below the i average, that five or more personal telephone calls had been received daily, that *olTJintary assistance to others was lacking, that she was to cease "personal.groomi~ng" at. her desk, and that there had been excessive lateness and absenteeism, "serious enough to warrant a formal warning." In conclusion, Ms. Lennie said "immediate improvement" was .required in all the areas mentioned. On March 4 another memorandum from tis. Lennie referred to the previous memorandum, said iateness and absenteeism seemed to be getting worse, and confirmed a suspension "for the balance of the shift..~." It also gave warning that "an immediate im- provement is expected and failure to do so could result in further suspension, demotion or terminat-ion." Ms. Lennie issued a lengthy memorandum, Exhibit 13, on April 28. It referred to in,terviews on February 8 and Narch 14. It acknowledged some improvementin quality and quantity of output and other areas, but said much better work was regulred. As for lateness and absenteeism, "both were deteriorating." The - 13 - last paragraph again gave warning that failing "substantial improvement" disciplinary action "which could include sus- pension, demotion or termination" would be taken. One June 3 I Ms. Lennie again discussed lateness and absenteeism with the griever, and s.aid in her memorandum"~of the same day that since April 28 "you have been late on four. occasions for a total of 48 minutes, and absent 3 and 3/4 days." The griever was then suspended. for the balance of her shift June 3 and also the two following days, with another warning that failure to improve could result in "a longer suspension, de- motion or termination." A somewhat different, memorandum, Exhibit 15, is dated June 18. It acknowledged that "the quality of your work has improved immensely," but emphasized that "an immediate ongoing improvement in output is required.:" if this did not occur by the end of June, disciplinary action such as suspension, demction .or termination would be taken. The next memorandum, Exhibit 16, July 10, referred to a "slight improvement"-in output, but said it was still far too low. The griever was given a one-day suspension jiith the - 14 - usual warning. There was no reference to attendance. A similar warning appeared in Exhibit 17, August 28, which complained of "frequent absences away from desk." The grievor received a suspension of almost five days on September 17, Exhibit 18, "a high frequency of late- ness and absenteeism" being given'as the reason. The grievor was told that from June 3 to September 17 she had been late on nine occasions,,totalling 5 hours and 8 minutes. in her testimony, Ms. Lennie made a correction: there had been seven occasions, not nines. In the concluding paragraph the usual' warning was amen.ded: termination received mention, but not suspension or demotion. Another suspension --- for the balance of the shift and two days thereafter --- came on October 3, Exhibit 19. This was attributed to low output, allegedry only 373~ lines per day as compared with the group's average of 712 lines. By a brief memorandum of November 6, Exhibit 20, the griever was told,: "As you have not displayed a sincere effort towards improvement, you have left me no alternative - - 15 - but to suspend you from work without pay effective today, November Sth, 1980, pending final disposition of the matter." Exhibit 23 is a collection of 14 "late slips" filed- by Iyrs. Jokinen between Fe,bruary 12 and September 17, 1980, but it is not complete, having regard to the fact that Ms. Lennie was admonishing the griever as early as February 8 regarding a record of excessive lateness and absenteeism. .I MS. Lennie's records of monthly production by each * employee are embodied in Exhibit 21. In January the grievor was a beginner in training for 15 days and her average daily output was only 213 lines. The lowest figure among her fellow-workers was 513, the highest 1,065. In February, the corresponding figures were 301, 523 and 963; in March, 115, 278 and 952; in April (when Mrs. Jokinen was "presently involved with filing duties") she averaged 36 lines for 19 days --- which is hardly credible rihile the lowest figure among her rDliOw workers was 440 and the highest 828. The corresponding figures in May were 294, 416 and 882; in June 307, 532 and 922; in July, 395, 610 and 966: in higust, 383, 597 and 939; in September, 341, 460 and 952;'in - 16 - October, 401, 442 (for manual production) and 983. It must be .. pointed out that the griever (and also a few of her fellow- workers) were sometimes assigned temporarily to other duties. Their average daily output on AES .was supposed to be calculated by di~viding the number of AES days into total iineage. In March, for example, Mrs. Jokinen was recorded as having produced by AES on 16 days, although it was also noted that she "handled filing duties approx. % days." The note must mean that she spent the equivalent of only 10 or 11 days on AES; not 16. Such inconsistencies .(and other discrepancies) in the record do not affect the obvious conclusion that her output was invariably lower than that of her fellow-workers, and by a wide margin. It may aiS0 be noted that the output of the best oper- ators was much higher than the average of others. Clearly, some are well-suited to the work'; some are not. ~: , The records of attendance and output described above confirm the Employer's conclusion that the griever's perfor- .*I;, mance was much less than satisfactory. It could be.expected in such circumstances that any supervisor --- even the most patient --1 would become frustrated and exasperated by an employee's indifferent punctuality and inadequate perfo~rmance. Fjhat is difficult to understand is why then problem was allowed . ’ - 17 - to festerfor many months, with-no attempt to place‘the grievor where she might have been useful. That this remedy was open for consideration is made clear by Ns. Lennie's several references in her memoranda to the possibility of "demotion." .; -_ It is next necessary ~to review the testimony of the grievor herself and the documents she filed in evidence. Mention has already beeti made of the commendations the grievor received from Dr. Bioom, Mr. Morton of Sunnybrook Hospital and Mr. Burke in respect of performance before 1979. Hr. Jones offered no criticism of the grievor's work in the first half of 1979: he merely found fault with her punctuality.. Referring to her promotion in July, 1959, the grievoy testified: "It was my mistake to apply for that position." We can only agree. It is clear from her own testimony as well as the record that in 1979 and 1980 the grievor was,not emotionally - 18 - 'or physically capable of assuming the responsibilities of a word-processing position, Salary Grade 004. There is no evidence that the quality of her earlier work was unacceptable, but~there is ample proof that it was not satisfactory after July{ ,..~1979. It is apparent that there were two reasons for the change in the griever. First, her successful experience as a medical secretary and in general office work (typing, filing and telephone reception) referred to by ~Mr. Burke, demonstrated. tha-t she could function acceptably when charged with a variety of not-too-difficult duties; she was not suited, however, to the demands of work on a word-processor thrcughout a shift of sevenand one-quarter hours. Secondly, the emotional stress from.,)lhich she has suffered since 1979 (of which she gives ample indications) made success unlikely in &entirely new and different type of work. The grievor has said that she thought Ms.~McLel lan "had a personal dislike for me... She complained about things I hed never been shown how to do. I was moved from one office .~~~. to .another. It takes time to get used to anyone's dictation. Th? more pressure I got the more i,t upset me." The griever . - 19 - was supposed to be on a "60-day trial," but Ms. McLellan kept her until December. As for her punctuality in 1979, she claimed others were just as late as she was, which seems unlikely. On being transferred to the head office, the griever spent a few days at a typewriter, took the AES course for two and one-half-days and then started on word-processing. "I could never operate those things," she said. "It gave me migraine headaches..... It's impossible for me to do that." In other words, she lacked both the capacity and the will to operate a word-processor efficiently, which must have become apparent to her supervisors long before November, 1980. The grievor said she wished to be reinstated, but complained she had been told she could not have a transfer to ~... a more suitable position. After about five months on the sword- processor she applied for a job in the mail.room but another employee got it. She went to ,the Personnel Office abouta trans- fer but was discouraged; she had~the impression that a transfer was not permitted until after at.least six months of satisfactory service. Referring t,o Ms.. Lennie's' statement that she had been .~;. - 20 - given a card bearing the name of a Vocational Counsellor, the grievor made a highly significant remark: "I didn't see the name on the card because I was on medication and under the doctor's care." At th.is point the grievor explained that her absence from work for several days in March was due to a "therapeutic abortion." She thought recovery took about 10 days "but it was an emotional thing" causing family problems and great distress' to her. At the second hearing of this case she produced Exhibit 29, a certificate signed by Dr. J.D. Taylor. Dated March 21, 1983, it is as follows: lb tiom it may axcern. . . Ws. Eelka Joben was referred by me to Dr. 0. Karabanow, a psychiatrist, on iMarch 4, 1980. Dr. K~abanow concluded that she was severely depressed on account of an unplanned pregnancy. A therapeutic abortion was considered justifiable ard this was performed later that month. Apart from her own statement quoted above, there is no evidence as to the "medication".given the gri~evor before or after the abortion. If such medication included tranquil- lizers, it would help to explain the grievor's apparent - 21 - sluggishness and the attitude of "indifference" mentioned by Ms. Lennle. Unfortunately, the grievor did not inform Ms. Lennie of her misfortune. Her explanation is that she had been toid by Ms. Lennie "not to bring personal problems to the office," which Vs. Lennie denies. It may be that the remark was made when admonishing the grievor for a series of personai telephone calls. These had been made, said the grievor, when her father was seriously ill. She asserts that she made faw calls from the office at other times. As for leaving her desk, she said "I went to the cafeteria when I felt sick." The grievor denied that she made many errors in her work. She said that "Ms. Lennie seemed to have a personal dis- like for me. The more I was pressured, the'more I wasp affected emotionally and physically." the Group Leader, Ns. Carscallen, had found fault with her punctuation and spelling: "I had the impression that she resented my knowledge." Apparently this was a reference to medical terminology. In cross-examination the grievor again asserted that others as well as herseif were of~ten iate. She had been upset - 22 -~ because Ys. McLellan did not treat her "properly." She had "never been treated that way before." As for the word-processing, the griever agreed her output was low but she thought Exhibit 21 shoiJed it to be increasing. She said: "I was not suited for that kind of work. I was not well and not getting any help from Ms. Lennie. I couldn't improve my work on that 'job..... It gave me head- aches." Her frequent lateness she attributed to emotional problems and worry about her treatment by iYs:Lennie. She added that "when I was distressed I couldn't get up early enough. I wanted a transfer so that~ I couid be hal;pier." No supervisor had ever questioned her about health problems ln work on the word-processor.. The grievor also disclosed~that some years ago she had worked at the Sick Children's Hospital. She now has a part-time job in a doctor's office but her earnings are low and "there are no benefits." In his argument, Nr. Riggs said that in view of the experience of three different supervisors, the Employer had no alternative in this case: it was unavoidably necessary, to .m .:_., i - 23 - discharge the grievor. Her lack. of punctuality, the poor quality of her work and the low output were beycnd dispute. he conceded that the Employer has other stenographic positions --- but fewer as.time goes on. Ms. Jokinen made representations to the effect that ,..,~. she had not been treated fairly by either !Yrs. HcLellan or Ms. Lennle. With the former she had sjorked for several doctors, at least one of whom praised her work, but she was constantly moved from one to another. As for Ms. Lennie's office, she emphasized that she was not suited to the work and tried to get a transfer. It seems to us that this is a classic case of attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole, which is a cardinal error in the management of human resources, being contrary to~..G i the.interests of both Employer and employee. It ought to have been obvious at a very early date that the griever was not qualified, temperamentally-pnd other- wise, for the work in Ms. McLellan's office, and even less qualified for the work in Ms. Lennie's office. in desperate - 24 - self-defensiveness the griever has tended to blame all her troubles on supervisors, which we do not consider either rational or justified. In fairness to Ms. Lennie, it must be pointed out the appraisal she gave the griever on July 15., 1530, Exhibit 24. was somewhat sympathetic and slightly favou~rable. It was as follows: General ~rformance overview(areas of strength and wea.kness). Felka's overall work performance has fallen short of the expect- ations .and standards of tie Support Services Section. Although the quality of her kor!k is acceptable, her output consistently falls well below the average rate for all staff ,&thin the Section. ~Helka's poor attitude towards her kDrk responsibilities has hindered&r not only in the prformance of her duties, but with her hark relationship with her pers and supervision. Helka's job knowiedge is lacking and she has not satisfactorily osmpreherded tine fundamental operation of the Kord Processing Equipment. Further training has been arranged. Her lateness and absenteeism are excessive. Imediate and on- gong improvement is a necessity. Personal develovnt plans. Helka's immediate goal is to improve her overall work prfor- mance and work habits in her present capacity. she is desirous of progressing to a position of "Secretary", as this would provide her .with a greater amcunt of variety in her rnDrk and she +.ould be in a .wsition to utiiize her shorthand skills. To date, she has successfully completed 3 out of 4 parts of a shorthand program at Seneca College. She inter& to enroll in the 4th part in September, 1580. Helka stated that the review xas a fair assessment of her work performance. She does not wish any changes, additions nor deletions. - ,,? - 25 - Further , on July 16, Ms. Lennie had arranged with AES to give the grievor a three-day training session. Even in Guly, it appears, Ms. Lennie had not given up hope. Ser patience may be admired, but it was unwise. When the griever sought a transfar, probably in May or June, she ought to have been encouraged., At that point sound management would-call for a realistic assessment of the situation i-- which was hopeless --- and a vigorous effort.to find another position where the griever could give useful service. It was a mistajte for supervisors and personnel officiais to stand aloof and let the matter drift toward the inevitable conclusion six months later. Surely the *m,anage- ment of such a large organization is capable of deploying its labour force more efficiently. The failure to take appropriate action in such circumstances is harmful the Employer as.well as being a persona 1 employee. We fully agree with Yr. Riggs afford-to tolerate a record such as tha t to the interests of disaster for the that 'management could not of the grievor. We cannot agree, however, that there irias no alternative but dis- charge. Indeed, the possibility of a demotion was specifically r . .’ - 25 - mentioned by Ms. Lennie in her warning memoranda of Harch I, April 28, June 3, June 18, July 10 and August 28 --- six times. 'The griever was told of her indefinite suspension !November 6 "pending final disposition of the matter," which did not occur until the dismissal letter of November 17. We have not been informed whether demotion received consideration .,_ during that interval. _. -~Subsection (3) in Set tion 19 of the Crown Employees Collective 3argaining Act is as follows: khere the Grievance Settlement Soard determines that a disciplinary pnalty or dismissa$ of an employee is excessive, it may sbstitute such other penalty for the discipline or dis-' missal as it rxnsiders just and reasonable in all the circurnstaqces. In our opinion, and in the peculiar circumstanc.$sof this case, the dismissal of %lrs. Jokinen was an excessive penalty, and we are orepared to .L substitute a penalty considered to be just and reasonable. Strictly speaking, the griever was guilty as charged of absenteeism, lateness and unacceptable work performance fr3m - 27 - the time of her promotion until November, 1980. She must accept responsibilit-y for her deficiencies, but the Employer must also accept responsibility for failing to take appropriate action in due time. - In our view, the proper course here is to do what the Employer ought to have done no later than June, 1980. We note that the Clerical and Administrative Salary Scale in Schedule "A" of the collective agreement lists no less than 35 differ-, ent positions at Salary Graded 003. These do not include any position described as "Stenographer," but they do include positions known as "Clerk-Typist, " "Clerical Typist,', Filing cierk" and "Senior Typist," as well as "Splicing Clerk" and "Telephone Recepti~onist." We cannot believe it impossible to fit the griever into one of the 35 positions listed. At the same time, it is to be hoped.that some thought will be given to the nature of the position identified --- and the grievor's suitability to <ill it. i It is also necessary, to emphasize what the griever must clearly understand: lack of punctual.ity and excessive absenteeism are unacceptable in any position. She should rid herself of the illusion that such failings are attributable Yo - 28 - supervisors' admonitions and warnings, which supervisors have a duty to give in cases of unsa tisfactory performance. Further, if she is dependent on "medication," she cannot expect - to hold a job without ending that dependency. - For obvious reasons we think it would be wrong to reinstate the grievor in the position she occupied in 1980. Nor are we prepared to order any payment of salary or other benefits loit since her dismissal save and except that she should retain her seniority, which appears to~date from July, 1977. Our decision.therefore is that the grievor shall be reinstated as an employee of the Workmen's Compensation 9oard with pay and other benefits as and from the date she commences work in a suitable position at Salary Grade 003, provided that she shall be offered in writing employment in such a position not later than 30 days after the date of this decision and that she accepts in writing such offer lxithin 10 da.ys after the receipt thereof and commences xork within.10 days there- after. If she fails to accept as. aforesaid, her grievance shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. . - 29 - . -_. If any arrrlculty or disagreement arises in im- ing this decision, we retain jurisdiction and will plement arrange to hold with the ?egis:rar (at the reqtiest of either parry) a further hearing. Dated this 13th day of April, 1983 EBJ:sol I. p 2’ E.B2:Jollifie, Q.C. 2 Vice-Chairman S.D. Kaufman A iMember G. Peckham Yember 7:3220 7:3100 7:3140 7:4310