Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0238.Dulevics.82-10-13IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearing: OPSEU (Ms. Mary Dulevics) Grievor ~- And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations) Employer R. 3. Roberts - Vice Chairman J. Best - LMember G. Peckham - IMember N. LucZay, Grievance/Classification Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union J. J. O'Shea, Co-ordinator Management Development Personnel Services Branch Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations June 3, and September 3, 1982 AWARD This is a discipline case. The Employer contends that it had just cause to impose a two day suspension upon the grievor because she had committed a number of acts of insubordination to her immediate supervisor, climaxing in a loud argument with her supervisor and a demonstration of defiance of his authority, the latter event occurring in full view of at least three of her colworkers. The Union contended on behalf of the grievor that no insubordina- tion was involved: rather, this simply was a misapprehension by the griever of instructions which her supervisor had not transmitted to her in a manner that she could understand. Because this was the fault of the supervisor and not the grievor, the Union contended, the Employer was not .justified in suspending the grievor. The Union also submitted an alternative argument that even if the Board were to find that the griever did disobeytheinstructionsof her supervisor, the disciplinary penalty should be reduced to a written warning in the light of the lack of any intent on the part of the grievor to undermine management and the fact that the grievor was acknowledged by the Employer to perform her job adequately. Upon due consideration of the evidence and argument . . ~of the parties, we dismiss the grievance. The grievor did - -3 - engage in a series of acts of insubordination which climaxed in the argument and demonstration of defiance alleged by the Employer. In these circumstances, the imposition of a two day suspension seems to us to be within the bounds of an appropriate disciplinary ~-~-a. response. The relevant facts, as we find them, are as follows: At all relevant times, the grievor was employed as a Clerk III, General in the Finance and Systems Branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Essentially, her job involved processing for payment invoices submitted by suppliers of goods and/or services to the Xinistry. In the performance of her duties regarding these invoices, the grievor would incorporate a number of diverse invoices into a group called a "batch". The grievor then would requisition payment for the invoices in the batch by attaching a requisition form to the batch and sending it on to the next stage of processing. There seems to be no doubt that the grievor performed these job functions in a satisfactory way, and had done so since her date of hire, September 7, 1976. There were, however,groblems with the grievor's attitude toward co-workers and supervision. For purposes of -4- this arbitration, it does not seem to be necessary to go intothedetails of these problems. It suffices to say that the grievor's attitude approximated that of a behavioural roller coaster -- at times helpful and co-operative and at other times obstreperous and unresponsive. Because the grievor and her co-workers worked in a relatively small, open area, the grievor created severe strain upon the morale of the entire group during her periods of deteriorated attitude. The grievor's disciplinary record shows that her behaviour during such times attracted two previous disciplinary responses from the Employer -- a one day suspension in February, 1980 and a deferral of merit increase in August, 198!3. In early 1982, Mr. I. Vyas, the then Supervisor of Expenditure Accounting and the grievor's immediate supervisor, became concerned about how to ensure compliance with the payment policy of the Treasurer of Ontario. Under this policy, the Province attempts to make payment to suppliers within 30 -days of receipt of goods or services from the suppli;r. If payment is.not made within that time, the supplier is entitled to interest at the rate of 1 l/2% per month. Mr. Vyas decided that -. 5- in order to induce maximum compliance with this policy, he would direct his staff to identify , those invoices in each batch which were more than 30 days old and summarize in a written explanation to be attached to the batch the reason for delay. In the period January 14-19, 1982, Mr. Vyas began to implement his decision. He called staff meetings to discuss the backlog in the section. At these meetings, he requested,each staff member to provide him with a list of the delayed payments that each of them was holding along with an explanation for each payment. The grievor resisted these instructions. She peppered Mr. Vyas with objections and questions. Ultimately, she did not provide Mr. Vyas with any list. Mr . Vyas did not respond to these actions of the grievor with any disciplinary sanction. He decided that he would attempt to achievecompliance with instructions by informally counselling thegrievor. The first opportunity for such a session occurred on -6 - January 21, 1982, when the grievor submitted for further processing a requisition for payment re a batch of invoices which had several delayed payments among them and yet had no summary explaining the reasons for de;lay. Mr. Vyas took the batch to the grievor and asked her to provide the written ~explanations that were required. The grievor simply gave Mr. Vyas a blank look and did not even acknowledge that he was i there. Mr. Vyas placed the batch in,front of the grievor. although she would not look in the direction of it. He then followed up with two verbal reminders to the grievor that she must comply with the requirement for an explanation for the delayed payments. There was no response. Mr. Vyas then decided to give his instructions to the grievor in writing. He wrote in longhand a lengthy 6-item memo regarding the batch and requisition he had returned to the grievor. He then gave the origina to the grievor and kept a photocopy for himself. He instructed the grievor to give top pricrity to the memo. - 7 - On the morning of the next day, January 22, 1982, Mr. Vyas followed up with the grievor. He asked her whether she had her response ready yet. The grievor replied, "What response?" Mr. Vyas said, "The response to the notes I gave you." The grievor replied, "What notes?" At that point, the grievor denied receiving any handwritten. notes or memorandum from Mr. Vyas. Still, Xr. Vyas was patient. He apparently believed that even yet he might succeed in bringing the grievor around without resort to discipline. He returned to his office and made a photocopy of the copy of his memo which he had retained for himself. He then gave this to the grievor at 2:15 p.m. on January 22. Because he was going to be away on the following'week, Mr. Vyas informed his own supervisor, Mr. A. Warner, about his written memorandum to the grievor. He told Mr. Warner that the grievor's responses to the points on his memo should be in by Monday, January 25th. When he returned on Monday, February 1, 1982, Mr. Vyas was informed that the grievor had not prepared any response. Indeed, she had denied to Mr. Warner that s,he had received any written instructions from Mr.Vyas. Mr. Vyss _ . -8 - who must be commended for his pati.ence, still . declined to discipline the grievor. He decided to try counselling one more time. On the morning of Tuesday, February 2, 1982, Mr. Vyas called the grievor into his office and asked her if she had prepared her responses to the notes that he had given her. The grievor stood mute, neither indicating yes nor no -- or for that matter whether she had even heard the question. When Mr. Vyas persisted, saying, "Mary, please, I have to have these answers." The grievor turned and stalked out of Mr. Vyas' office. Still, Mr. Vyas hoped'for a non-disciplinary solution to the problem. He called a staff meeting for 2:00 p.m. on that day. The purpose of the staff meeting was to reiterate to the grievor, in the presence of everyone, that it was very important to include a summary explaining delayed payments with each batch of invoices being processed. All of the grievor's co-workers expressed support for th? contest. They were providing such information regularly. The grievor remained silent. On February 4, 1982, the grievor submitted another batch of invoices to her supervisor which - 9 - contained a number of delayed payments but yet omitted any summary explaining the reasons for delay. Mr. Vyas called the grievor into his office. He asked her to comply with the procedure to provide such explanations. This time the grievor did not stand mute. She responded that she thought that his request was unreasonable. Yr. Vyas then insisted that he had to have an explanation for each delayed payment. At this point, the grievor grabbed the batch of invoices from Mr. Vyas' hand, stalked out of his office to 'her desk, and dumped the batch into her trash can with a resounding bang. The grievor took these actions in front of at least three co-workers. One, who was on the phone at the time of the incident, had to terminate the call because the noise created by the grievor when she shouted at Mr. Vyas and threw the batch into the trash can was too loud to permit her to continue. Mr. Vyas decided that this incident constituted graphic evidence that his efforts at informal counsellinq were useless. He decided that discipline was the only _ answer, and recommended to his superior, Mr. Warner, that discipline be imposed. On February 9, 1982, Mr. - 10 - Warner recommended to Mrs. J.E. Service, Director,, Personnel Services Branch for the Ministry, that the grievor be suspended without pay for two days. On February 11, 1982, Mrs. Service suspended the grievor for two days for "disruptive and insubordinate" behaviour. This grievance and arbitration followed. It seems to us that on the above facts, the Employer has made out a case of insubordination by the grievor. It appears that over a considerable period of time the grievor persisted in deliberately disobeying instructions from her supervisor to which she objected. Then,to climax this pattern of deliberate disobedience, the grievor made a graphic demonstration of her defiance of her supervisor in front of at least three of her co-workers. Up until this time -her supervisor had reacted with commendable patience, even going to the point of issuing and reissuing written instructions to be sure that the grievor was advised of and understood what was required of her. There could not have been any misunderstanding. All of the elements of insubordination are made out in these facts. Further, we conclude that imposition of a two - day suspension was a not unreasonable response to the - 11 - misconduct of the grievor in this case. Particularly where, as here, the climaxing incident of insubordination conveyed to the grievor's co-workers her lac,k of respect for legitimate instructions of her supervisor, a two day suspension might be considered to be on the lenient side of a reasonable range of disciplinary responses. The grievance is dismissed. DATED AT London, Ontario this 13th d,ay of October 1982. 3.7. Roberts, Vice-Chairman J. Rest, Member G. Peckham, Member