The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-0194.O'Keeffe.82-11-04. . . 1 .Zi...“!. ‘. -. ., _ ,i _ ‘:J’~..‘: -3 ,” f. .>.. .>:.?‘I ,p “I ~.I-^ . Then Crown.;in..Right of',Ont,ayio _. . '(Linistry. 0f'Correctiotial . . Beforek .-.i, ;': f-~ .~ E.E, Palmer,,Q.C..~ ~..Vice. Chairman _ . . F. Collom Member :. _,. _ .E' _ .~ . jL R. 0 '.K.d.ly., .,:.., kiember j : ._. :,...:For the'Grievor: ..~.G. : Richards., '. ,,.. .: >,,. . Grievance/Classificatibn:Off'icer -c" 1. _ _._ _ a Ontario P;?bli:c S.e_ry.ice Qployees Union ,Er.the. Employer: J:B. Thomas.. I -. Regioqal Personnel bffiier " _ ., .,.-:. . _ = . T M,ciin.isJry 0.f Correction?l:.~ervices~ Y.,, _ .‘..1 c.;.. _._ _ fiearing: September 30. 1982 \ 2. AWARD ----- The present arbitration arises out of a grievance filed by Mr. E. O'Keeffe on 23 February 192 alleging he was improperly given a letter of reprimand dated 29 January 1982. Naturally, Mr. O'Eeeffe requested that this be withdrawn from his record. It is similarly obvious that this matter was not settled during the grievance procedure and so forms the basis of the present arbitration, a hearing in relation to whi:h was held in Toronto, Ontario, on 30 September 1982. At that time the parties were given an opportunity to present evidence and argument. Ko question arose concerning the jurisdiction of the Board to deal with this matter. ._ Certain aspects of the instant grievance were not in dispute and so it appears useful to set these out as a background against which to consider this matter. Thus, it would seem that on the morning of 22 December 1981, the griever had made a comment to a fellow employee who was both female and married. Essentially, the statement of Mr. O'Keefe, which he did not deny making, was to the effect that certain improper sexual activity had occurred between that fellow 'officer and another married, male employee of the Employer with whom she drove to work. This was done by addressing this employee as the wife of the other employee. Not unnaturally, the employee so addressed was upset by this. completely inappropriate comment and contacted management at the Guelph Correctional Institution where they both worked. Subsequent to this, a meeting was held between the grievor and Mr. S. W. Richardson, the Senior Assistant Superintendent of the Institution and, subsequently, on 6 January 1982 a letter was sent to the grievor, the last paragraph of which read: L 1. . . . . -. i : .; . 2 I am advising you and this letter will serve as a 4' i. ,(. written bounsrllirig ,.that,;!.in this instance, I consider your conduct as unbecoming a correctional Officer. .-. ; .,_. : The :fact,‘that MS!;: Woodhouse ,:took.[exceptio,n :to*y,our ._ remark is indicative of it being indiscrete and in ,-v ;a podi :ta’s,te: Withreference 5to:the:fpregojng~cyou are hereby advised that any further incidents of this -natur'e'could result -An ~stronger ~disc~&plinary action being taken. .:,.: . . ; .:~ - ; I“ (_ : z.7 ;-,y.. i : :I _ .? ) _ ', f ! T)& ia& &;.;oo( gf&jed and::so s&n'd's'.ijn 'fhe gri&&'.s, record* ;*-;< :-,.r,- -<. _ ,-I : : ., '-.- In"any-event; "without 'going'*intoLdetail at great length at L' .. ? :. _: ,:.; ,. : r', this point, it w&Id seem that on'-8 ~Janu&$l'982; sometime"'shortly _~. before 4:OO pfm: ~on"ghat"day, Mr.' OVKeeff$"~again encountered the . ..> . ; c+ ;-' - same emp'i&e'~&d; in the presence at'-lea&t 'of-fellow~'employees, .,,. .i if not inmates', 2:. I“ again m&"~state&ts 'to‘:which that'eihployee took >'., .,,/ .,. :,, exception. : These'.again were re~crted:t~'rnan~gkment'.a~d; subsequently, ..- (. ..~ ‘a further written warning was i'ssued~to th&"grievor'^on'29:January 1982 which izthe"siib$ect of:.thi.S'~rieirance'[see Exhibit. III]. The spe;ific wording of the lette'f'is'not particularly important, aithough ,r the;e.'werk some- d-iffer-ences: raised. reg'arding this: matter at the hearing. Suffice it to say that the'-letteritself!indicated that its writer, Mr. W. Taylor, the Superintendent of the Institution, 'took- the view <hai Mr.~ O'Ke'effe'both lied 'about what had occurred .,~ -. I in this final in'cidnt 'and that'the incident itself merited discipline. On the question of'whether '-. XX. O'Keeffe-iied; there was a-.'difference of evidence on-' such pdint. However, it i‘s..the iriew of the Board that it is unnecessary to determine this point in the instant case. -- 4. It is necessary, therefore, to turn to the specific evidence of what occurred in this final incident. Essentially,~the female employee.stated that she was working shortly before 4:00 o'clock.on the day in question at the point where shifts.are changing. 1.t would seem she was in an area frequented by otheremployees of the.Smployer and, on occasion, inmates. At the time, however, there is no specific evidence if any of the.latter were present. It is clear, however, that a number of _~ fellow employees were present. Apparently, the grievor stated some- thing to the effect of: "There's Billy Taylor's right-hand girl." .-The-employee addressed was of.the view that this indicated she was bein associated with management in an inappropriate way. Naturally, she took offense at this remark and subsequently reported it to .1 management, the instant.written warning arising out of this. It should.be noted that this view, of the incident was corroborated by Mr. ~..,,Foulds, the Wing Supervisor, who was unaware of the general background of what had .occurred. .As well, Hiss S. Scyblyski, a I. fellow Correctional Officer,was even more specific in her corroboration. She was of no uncertain mind that the grievor had acted improperly in the situation. In essense, Mr. O',Keeffe did.not refute the above story. He indicated at the time that he was "really annoyed” with the female employee in question and, although he disputed the specific language, he did not deny that he said something of that nature. 5. . : :- Thus,.given his.annoyance and the genera&, thrust of.test,imony, there 2 .1: ;. can be.little doubt that the view putforwa;d,by wit,ne,sses for the ,: : ,:. Employer is more appropriate. _' I .-: : While there,was extensive,,argyent put forward by the . -' _ ,.-.. Unionrelating to the, fact that relations within the Institution I in:\question were not similar to those.which would.,prevail,,,in a , ._, .; ,i "Gentlemen's Club", there can be little doubt from the evidence that.on the final incident, the griever, as he said himself, was _~.. trying to "put a ~dig in" to his .fellow employee. It is, equally clear that he was aware both that such was not desired.by the ,I. Employee &d..t~hat he had been counseled by his Employer to the _ ,qppoSite:positi,on. In these circumstances, then, it is difficult - to see how one can challange the imposition of such mild discipline as a written warning in.these circumstances. r. ._ ; . . , _ The .Board would comment further that while the statement ‘. . :. of the grievor on its face would seem to be innocuous enough and -not the. type of‘matter which would attract discipline normally, . such must be looked at in the light of the surrounding circumstances. &ite obviously,~ -. .~. -the' female officer in question had justification for her view that she had been treated extremely improperly by the grievor at the time of the earlier incident mentioned. Consequently, Mr. O'Keeffe's statement would reopen a wound which can‘hardly be said to have healed. Having done so - and having done so against strict directions from his superiors - Mr. O'Keeffe would seem to ,. . . .- 6. have no justification for his activity. It would seem that he was I not being provoked by his fellow employee and that it was not a statement which sprang to his lips on the spur of the moment and which he immediately regretted. Given the foregoing view of the evide.ice, it does not to this Board seem necessary to examine other aspects of the case.which were raised by the parties. Accordingly, this grievance is dismissed. DATED at London, Ontario, this 4th day of November, 1982. E. E. Palmer, Q.C., Vice Chairman fc , F. Collom, Member R. O'Kelly, Member 7:3610