HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0467.Heath.83-08-17IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: OPSEU (James Heath)
Before:
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
P.M. Draper Vice Chairman
ELI. Bounsall Member
NJ. Cazzola Member
For the Grievor: P.A. Sheppard
Grievance Officer, Grievance Section
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer: M.H. Campbell
Counsel
Legal Section
Ministry of Health
Hearings: February 22, 23, 24, 25, 1983
May 10, II, 1983
Grievor
Employer
The Grievor, James Heath, grieves that he has been unjustly
dismissed and requests that he be reinstated, that he be reimbursed for loss
of salary, benefits and credits, and that all reference to hls dismissal be
removed from the Employer’s records.
At the time of his dismissal on August 21, 1982, the Grievor
was employed by the Windsor Provincial Ambulance Service (WPAS) as an
ambulance attendant, classified Ambulance Officer 2 (A02). He was then
32 years old, had been a full-time employee of WPAS since February, 1974,
and was President of OPSEU Local 176, of which WPAS employees are
members.
Together with Windsor Central Ambulance Dispatch, WPAS
operates under the direction of the Ambulance Services Branch of the
Ministry of Health. It employs 4 shift supervisors and 30 ambulance
attendants, all of whom are members of the bargaining unit as are
dispatchers employed by Windsor Central Ambulance Dispatch. It operates
9 ambulance units, at least 3 of which are always on duty. Its management
consists of a Manager, William Fawcett, and an Assistant Manager,
Conrad Marier. The Manager reports to the Regional Manager,
Southwestern Ontario, Diane Zerebecki, who, in turn, reports to the
Director, Ambulance Services Branch, Gordon Ventura. A Manager,
Licensing and Inspections, Paul Lonergan, ls also on the staff of the
Branch.
WPAS serves the Windsor metropolitan area and its principal
“clients” are the health care institutions in the area, comprising hospitals,
5 in number, and nursing homes. The evidence presented to the Board
,’
,>
,i)
-3-
relates primarily to two hospitals, Grace and Windsor Western, and to one
nursing home, Villa Maria Home for the Aged.
Kevin Wessel was an Ambulance Officer (A02) in the summer
of 1982 and is now an Acting A04 in the employ of WPAS. Wessel testified
that on a date in July, 1982, the Grievor came in his pick-up truck to the
Grace Hospital base where he was on duty. The Grievor removed 12 to 15
sheets from two duty ambulance units and from the base supply cabinet and
took them away in his truck. The Grievor told him that the sheets did not
belong to either WPAS or to Canadian Linen, which supplies linens to
WPAS, but to various hospitals in the area, and that he was going to return
them. He has used linens belonging to hospitals when he did not have a
fresh one. Hospitals have WPAS linens and vice versa. Linens could have a
WPAS, a hospital or a Canadian Linen stamp on them. There have been
shortages of linens at WPAS but never a matter of none to be had. He has
used previously-used sheets .in transporting patients although it is not a
good practice.
Gregory Skomask, an A02 in the employ of WPAS, testified that
on a date in July, 1982, he delivered a supply of linens to the Grace
Hospital base following a report of a linen shortage there. When he arrived
he noticed the Griever’s pick-up truck and then saw the Grievor enter his
ambulance unit. When he approached him the Grievor said he was “going
over supplies” and was “returning stolen property”. He asked the Grievor
to leave the unit and the Grievor did so, taking 3 or 4 sheets and the only
pillow. He asked for and got back the pillow but not the sheets. At that
time hospitals did not object to having their linens taken by WPAS
personnel but now they do. There have been shortages of linens at WPAS
.
‘i,
,i, -4-
but he could always get some somewhere. He has sometimes had no choice
but to re-use a sheet.
Edward Duda, a A01 employed part-time by WPAS, testified
that on a date in July, 1982, he was on duty in an ambulance unit at a
stand-by location when the Grievor, who was out of uniform, arrived and
entered his unit. The Grievor went through the linen cabinet and took
4 or 5 sheets, saying that he was going to return them to the hospitals and
nursing homes whose stamps were on them. He has had to re-use linens
when there was no time to get a fresh supply. During July and August,
1982, linens were often not available from the regular sources.
Randy Rollo is an A02 in the employ of WPAS. He testified
that he was the Grievor’s partner on July 15, 1982, the date on which their
ambulance unit transported a patient to Villa Maria at approximately 1000
hours. On arrival they were informed that a patient was to be transported
from Villa Maria to hospital. The Crievor and he checked out the unit at
0700 hours and the Grievor wrote up the Supply and Equipment Check
form. The unit had 5 sheets in all. They attended the second patient after
the Grievor made telephone calls to WPAS and their conversations with
Villa Maria personnel. They did not use a soiled sheet to transport the
patient to hospital but borrowed one from Villa Maria.
John Parent is an A02 in the’employ of WPAS. He testified
that there was a growing shortage of linens at WPAS during July and
August, 1982. It has been an ongoing problem that has been brought to the
attention of management. He has frequently had to take out an ambulance
unit with a short supply of linens. He has never been told to use a soiled
sheet and knows it to be a WPAS policy not to do so. Having a proper
supply of linens in ambulance units is the responsibility of the oncoming
shift and a low supply would be replenished unless there was not sufficient
time as, for example, if there was an immediate call. He has obtained
linens from hospitals as needed. He thinks management has “jumped on”
some employees and not on others for similar conduct. The Grievor, Rollo
and one other employee seemed to him to “draw” discipline for failure to
follow dispatchers’ orders which could be either important or trivial
incidents.
Wally Buckler is an A02 in the employ of WPAS. He testified
that there were shortages of linens during the summer of 1982 and three or
four days per week he had to get supplies from hospitals. About a year ago
he was told not to change sheets unless it was necessary and has recently
been given paper sheets to use.
Larry Ainlin is an A02 in the employ of WPAS. He testified
that the shortage of linens worsened during July, 1982, and he had to get
supplies from other ambulance units or from hospitals. He reported the
problem to his supervisor. He estimates that 20 to 25 per cent of the
linens used by WPAS are not its own. He was never instructed to use only
fresh sheets.
Sarah Dennison is the Head Nurse in the Emergency
Department of Grace Hospital. She testified that on a date in July, 1982,
the Grievor came to the hospital and asked her if she was aware of the
problem regarding linens. He said that WPAS was using hospital linens;
that the Ministry made provision in its budget for linens but there were
. . . ,r
‘\
c
I *
-6-
never enough; and that WPAS ,took linens from hospitals to make up its
requirements. She replied that she did not think that the hospital had a
linen problem and told him he should be talking to the hospital’s
Administrator. The Grievor said he was keeping track of the linens being
used by WPAS and was returning some for which he asked, and was given, a
receipt. At a meeting held on a later date she and the Director of Nursing
met with Zerebecki and Lonergan and told them that there was no linen
problem at the hospital. They were also told that WPAS could use hospital
linens provided that the hospital got them back. Exchanges of linens
between WPAS and the hospital are acceptable although there is no formal
policy and no instruction on the subject. Sometimes the hospital has linens
in use belonging to other hospitals. The Grievor’s approach made her
wonder what WPAS “was up to” when they knew they could always take
hospital linens if needed.
Gordon Chappell is the Assistant Administrator of Grace
Hospital. He testified that there is no formal understanding regarding the
use of Grace Hospital linens by WPAS but there are some exchanges of
linens. There is an informal agreement that linens from ambulance units
using the Grace Hospital base are laundered by the hospital and returned
except for any Grace Hospital linens amongst them.
Nlandakin Canaran is the Head Nurse’ in the Emergency
Department of Windsor Western Hospital. She testified that on a date in
July, 1982, the Griever came to the hospital and said he wanted to speak to
her about linen. He told her that the Ministry had funds for linen but never
had enough and WPAS personnel had to use linen taken from hospitals. He
asked her to call the Director of Nursing and to ask her to put out a
-7-
directive that WPAS personnel could not take linens from the hospital.
There had always been a free exchange of linens in the past which had not
created problems. Clean linen was given to ambulance attendants if they
came to the hospital with only soiled linen. It is poor patient care to use
soiled linen.
Jean Marie Adamson is Director of Nursing at Windsor Western
Hospital. She holds a Master’s Degree in Nursing and is an Assistant
Professor at the University of Windsor. Adamson testified that on a date
in July, 1982, Canaran told her that the Manager of WPAS was telling
ambulance attendants to take linens from the hospital. She knew that
exchanges of linen went on - one user of linens helps another. The use of
clean linen is always preferred but others considerations might override
normal practice. There had been no problems involving linens previously.
She issued a directive to the nursing staff to see that WPAS ambulance
attendants “use their own linen and none of ours is taken”. The Grievor
told her that the management of WPAS was trying to avoid spending money
from its budget and that he “had many more stories” to tell her. He gave
her his telephone number but she had no further contact with him. About
two weeks after the incident Zerebecki and Lonergan visited her at the
hospital. ‘She had intended to approach WPAS about what seemed to her to
be a dishonest practice. She appreciated their approach and was glad an
investigation wasp being made because the Griever’s conduct had put the
WPAS “in question”. Trust and cooperation between WPAS and the hospital
are essential. She considers the Griever’s accusations to have been false
and the whole incident “a crock”.
J
-8-
Ann Zatyko is a Registered Nurse employed part-time at Villa
Maria Home for the Aged. She testified that on July 15, 1982, she called
for an ambulance to transport a patient to Windsor Western Hospital where
a physician was waiting to attend her. The ambulance that arrived had a
patient for the Home. She told the Crievor that there was a patient to be
picked up and he replied that he had “other dealings” to attend to. When
the newly ‘arrived patient had been placed in bed the Grievor used the
telephone and then asked to see the Administrator. He was not available
so she called the Director of Nursing, Mary Morrison. The Griever told
Morrison that he did not have fresh linen for the patient who was to be
transported to hospital, showed her a soiled sheet and said “the boss”
wanted him to use it. He was worried that he would be accused of
insubordination if he did not. He was given a clean sheet. She has had no
problems with linens and would give ambulance attendants sheets if they
were needed. Sheets are loaned by the Home and might come directly back
or “someone else’s” might be. returned. She has not’observed soiled sheets
being used by WPAS personnel.
Mary Morrison, Director of Nursing at Villa Maria, testified
that on July 15, 1982, she was called by Zatyko and met the Grievor and
another ambulance attendant in the hallway. They asked for the
Administrator, who was not available. She was told that they could not
transport the patient to hospital because they had no clean sheets and was
shown a soiled sheet. The Grievor said he had called Marier who had told
him to use the soiled sheet ~which he did not want to do. He asked for her
professional opinion about the use of soiled linen. He said he expected that
he would be disciplined. if he did not obey his instructions and asked for her
support if that happened. She offered him a clean sheet and told him to
get on with transporting the patient to hospital. She telephoned Marier to
c! -9-
say that ambulance attendants should not have to use soiled sheets and that
she hoped that they were not being told to do so. She considered the
incident to be a major one because a resident in poor physical condition and
requiring medical diagnosis was involved. The patient was to be
transported to hospital on the instructions of the Medical Director of the
Home and there should have been no delay. There have been no problems
with the supply of linens at the Hoie and no reason for WPAS personnel
not to take one of their sheets, which she would hope to get back. Linens
should be clean but as to the use of soiled linen the question is what is it
soiled with.
Conrad Marier has been Assistant Manager of WPAS for
5 years. He testified that in July, 1982, linen supplies were lower than
usual because a busy period had just occurred. The shortage continued
after he thought it should have ended and he ordered more sheets from
Canadian Linen. It is normal to have exchanges of linens with hospitals
and shortages had never been severe until mid-July. On July 15, 1982, he
received a telephone call from the Grievor who was at Villa Maria. The
Grievor described the patient who was to be transported to hospital as
short of breath, sweating and with elevated temperature and said he had
only a used sheet available. Based on the information given by the Grievor
regarding the patient, he told the Grievor to use the sheet he had. When
the Grievor said he could not do so the order was repeated. He found it
extraordinary that he should receive such a call. ~The dispatcher on duty
(Redman) called him and said the Grievor was on the dispatch telephone
and wanted his orders over that telephone. Conversations on the dispatch
telephone are taped. He told the dispatcher that the Grievor had already
been given his orders. The transcript of the conversations between the
Grievor and Redman and between Marier and Redman reads:
1000 Hours Tape Counter #969 to 980
Jim Heath: Yeah, Gerald, this ls Jim,
105. We have another call
here at Villa . . .
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
. Jim Heath:
Right.
. . . and we have got only one
sheet and our assistant
manager ls telling us to use a
dirty sheet and I . . . I can’t do
that . . .
You can’t?
. . . that’s not right. THAT is
not right. What would you
advise me to do?
We... maybe if he said use it,
you might as well use it.
Can you check with him to
make sure this is on tape?
Because I’m not saying that
I’m refusing to do the call; I
just want to make sure that
my directions are’on tape.
OK.
OK?
1’11 call him.
Appreciate it.
- Gerald Redman calls Conrad Marier -
Conrad Marier:
Gerald Redman:
Hello.
Yeah, Conrad.. Jim’s on the
phone. Do you want him to
use the soiled linen?
Conrad Marier:
Gerald Redman:
Conrad Marier:
- confirms -
You do, eh?
Yes, I already told him that
on telephone.
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
~Jim Heath:
Gerald Redman:
Jim Heath:
- I1 -
OK. Right. (Hangs up;
returns to line with Heath)
Jim? Go ahead and do the
call.
Do the call with a dirty
sheet? That’s what Conrad
Marier advised you to say?
Well, he just said he was
talking to you on the phone
and he said go ahead and do
the call.
With a dirty sheet?
Yeah.
OK. I . . . I’m goin’ to have to
put a grievance on thb.
OK.
OK.
On call 169226 .;.
226?
Code 2, YOU have a
Mrs. Claypool.
Claypool?. Spell it.
Villa Maria. I believe she’ll
be going to Hotel Dieu. You
can check with the nurse
there. She is having
congestion. She is stable.
OK. ‘Bye.
Continuing his testimony, Marier stated that shortly thereafter the
dispatcher called him and said someone from Villa Maria was on his
telephone and wanted to speak to him. The caller was Morrison, the
Director of Nursing. The transcript of the call reads:
1015 hours:
Mary Morrison:
Gerald Redman: Right.
Mary Morrison: She’s going to
Emergency Room.
Gerald Redman:
Mary Morrison:
Gerald Redman:
Dispatch Mgr:
Mary Morrison:
Dispatch Mgr:
Mary Morrison:
Dispatch Mgr:
Mary Morrison:
Conrad Marier:
-l2-
Tape Counter #992 to 1010
Good morning. It’s Mary
Morrison, Director of Nursing
of Villa Maria calling . . uh . .
Ambulance attendants have
just come in to pick up a
resident, a Mrs. Olive ’
Claypool.
IODE
OK.
They’re covering her with a
soiled sheet which I really
don’t think is necessary. I’ve
given them one of our sheets
from the Home, and I’d just
very much appreciate . . . you
know... if the matter couldn’t
be looked into a little
further. They had no other
linen with them except a
sheet that was soiled.
Hold the line, please. (Dials
dispatch manager)
Yes. This is the Ambulance
Dispatch manager. What I’m
going to do is turn the call
over to the manager of the
Ambulance Service... because
we’re just . . . urn . . . in the
middle here.
OK.
OK?
I understand. That’s fine.
So what I’m going to do is, I
will turn the call over to the
manager and uh . . the
assistant manager . . . and you
can talk to him. So if you’ll
just like to hold the line for a
minute, please.
OK. Thanks.
Hello. Can I help you?
-
Mary Morrison: Yes. It5 Mary Morrison from
Villa Maria.
Conrad Marier: Hl, Mary. Conrad here.
Mary Morrison: Oh. Hi, Conrad. There3 a
bit of a problem just a few
minutes ago.
Conrad Marier:
Mary Morrison:
Conrad Marier:
Mary Morrison:
Conrad Marier:
Mary Morrison:
Conrad Marier:
Mary Morrison:
Conrad Mar&:
- 13-
Right. I heard all about it
already . . . I know it’s
(unintelligible)
It’s just . . urn . . I hope . . . you
know . . . you didn’t tell the
boys to . . uh... cover one of
our residents with a soiled
sheet.
Well...
I gave them... you know...
I . . . It’s not (unintelligible)
Right . . . right.
I did give them a clean sheet,
one of ours, and I was just
gonna call an’ . . . you know...
talk about it, but I don’t
know. I’ve got enough here
that I’m dealing with; if
there’s a problem, you’ll have
to work it out. But for now I
gave them . . . you know . . .
one of our sheets . . . and you
know... it should keep . . . let
it stay with the resident and
hopefully it will come back.
Whether it gets lost or not
I’m being responsible for
that. But I . . . I was just... I
just wanted to talk about it,
that’s all.
OK. 1’11 take care of it . . .
I told them they’ll have to do
what they have to do, but I . . .
urn . . . just wanted to report
it. It mean not report,
report, but just . . .
Yeah, they . . .
.
- 14 -
Mary Morrison: . . . that’s never come up
before.
Conrad Marier:
Mary Morrison:
Conrad Marier:
I know . . .
I’m just a little surprised.
I know. Well, so am I, but . . .
uh . . . it’s something we’ll
have to deal with and it’s an
internal problem that we
have here.
Mary Morrison:
Conrad Marier:
Mary Morrison:
Conrad Marier:
Mary Morrison:
OK... it’s no . . . it’s not a real
problem. 1 just said, take one
of ours, it’s no problem.
OK, then. Thanks, Mary.
Thanks, Conrad.
‘Bye.
‘Bye.
He (Marier) brought ‘fresh sheets to the Griever’s destination, Windsor
Western Hospital, and on examining his ambulance unit found that there
were no fresh sheets and only four soiled sheets. The unit should have had
a minimum of six fresh sheets available at the start-of the shift and since
the call to transport a patient from Villa Maria was the third received by
the unit there should have been two fresh sheets remaining at that stage.
There is a corporate policy regarding the use of clean linens with which he
agrees. It is normal procedure to use clean linens but there may be
medical reasons for not doing so. He was told by one of the AOZ’s that the
Grievor was taking linens from WPAS supplies. The Crievor had never
raised the question of linen shortages with him and had never before
returned linens to hospitals in the way he did. ,He does not recall the
subject of linens being discussed at any Employee Relations
Committee (ERC) meetings he attended. He believes that the Grievor
misrepresented the situation at Villa Maria so as to create an incident. He
- 15-
considers that the Grievor is not dependable or trustworthy and he could
not carry out his own duties properly if required to work with him.
William Fawcett has been Manager of WPAS since 1974. He testified
that WPAS uses both its own and hospital linens. In July, 1982, Marier
reported to him that linen supplies were dwindling and also that he had
learned that the Grievor was taking linens from ambulance units. Further
inquiries led him to suspect that the Grievor was telling hospitals that
WPAS was stealing their supplies. When he telephoned the Grievor to
discuss his conduct the Grievor told him he did not have to talk to him
without a union official present and hung up. The Grievor had never
complained to him about linen shortages. He does not recall the subject of
linen being discussed at an ERC meeting held in the spring of 1982. From
time to time supplies of linens have been low but patient care has never
been affected by shortages. Depending on the circumstances, it might be
poor patient care to use soiled linen. The Villa Maria case is the only
instance where an employee was instructed to transport a patient on a
soiled sheet. No employee has ever been disciplined for failing to use clean
sheets. The Ministry’s Director of Ambulance Services, Ventura, instructed
him and the Manager of Licensing and Inspections, Lonergan, to visit the
hospitals served by WPAS and wrote letters of introduction the text of
which reads:
I am concerned that we may be experiencing a
breakdown in the good relationship that existed
between hospital and ambulance personnel. It ls
alleged that this situation has been provoked by the
unauthorized action of one of our ambulance
attendants.
In the interest of restoring our relationship and
maintaining good patient care, I would appreciate if you or your designee would meet with the following
members of my staff to discuss this matter:
- 16-
Mr. T.P. Lonergan
Manager
Licencing & Inspections
Mr. W.J. Fawcett
Manager
Windsor Provincial Ambulance Service
1 feel this is an important issue and 1 have asked
Mr. Fawcett to contact your office to arrange a
meeting, preferably on either August 9 or 10, 1982.
Many thanks for your co-operation.
Continuing his testimony, Lonergan stated that during those visits they
expressed their concern that the conduct of a WPAS employee was
disrupting the relationship between WPAS and the hospitals and assured the
hospitals that no WPAS personnel had been ordered to take any “non-
Canadian Linen Co.” linens from hospitals. The hospitals were pleased to
have the investigation being made and the general reaction was that they
would be concerned if “something was going on” to disrupt their
relationship with WPAS. There was no problem at Metropolitan General or
Hotel Dieu. Grace and Windsor Western “took a while longer to settle
down”. He discussed with Zerebecki the question of discipline to be
imposed on the Grievor, who had been suspended with pay by letter dated
August 5, 1982, and signed by Ventura, pending the outcome of the
investigation. By letter dated August 18, 1982, and also signed by Ventura,
the Grievor was notified of his dismissal in the following terms:
I have reviewed the information concerning your
unauthorized removal of.supplles, your disruption of
the Windsor Provincial Ambulance Service, and the
detrimental effects these unauthorized actions have
had on the Ministry’s good relationship with health
care facilities.
The gravity of these offences, alone, leaves me no
alternative other than to immediately dismiss you
from employment with the Ministry of Health,
,.~ .
- 17-
I
effective August 21, 1982. A review of your work
record serves further to reinforce this decision.
1 have been delegated this authority by the Deputy
Minister of Health, as set out in Section 22(3) of the
Public Service Act.
I am required to advise you that should you disagree
with this decision, you have the right to file a
grievance at the second stage of the Grievance
Procedure, provided you do so within 20 days of the
date of your dismissal.
He (Lonergan) believes that the Grievor cannot work responsibly without a
degree of supervision that it is not possible to provide, has maligned and
tried to discredit WPAS, and is no longer to be trusted.
Paul Lonergan is Manager, Licensing and Inspections,
Ambulance Services Branch of the Ministry. He testified that ambulance
units should carry at least four fresh sheets plus a “dressed” stretcher with
two more sheets but commonly carry more than the minimum. In July,
1982, he received a verbal report that the Grievor had been removing
linens from WPAS ambulance units and base supply cabinets and sent a
member of his staff to investigate. The investigator interviewed a number
of WPAS ambulance attendants and was told that the Griever had been
seen removing linens. Because of the fear that the Grievor’s. actions had
damaged the relationship between WPAS and the hospitals and in order to
undo any harm that might have been done it was decided to visit the
hospitals. He and Fawcett made a round of visits and at a later date he
and Zerebecki made further visits. There was some concern at Grace and
yindsor Western but none at Metropolitan General, Hotel Dieu or Villa
Maria. WPAS personnel who were interviewed generally considered
ambulance units to be properly equipped. He has not been aware of any
linen shortages at WPAS and considers that it provides good service and
- 18-
good patient care. He regards Marier’s instruction to the Grievor to use a
previously used sheet as an isolated incident in reaction to the information
received from the Grievor about the patient and not as indicative of
normal WPAS practice. There is good rapport between WPAS management
and employees but poor relations between management and the union. The
problems created by the Grievor have been disruptive, he is not to be
trusted and his reinstatement would be “disastrous”.
Diane Zerebecki is a Registered Nurse and has been Regional
Manager, Southwestern Ontario, Ambulance Services Branch of the
Ministry for 6 years. She testified that the free exchange of linens
amongst health care institutions and ambulance services is common
practice across the province. As a nurse she would not use a sheet on more
than one hospital patient. She makes a distinction between “clean used”
and “dirty used” sheets. It is always best to use fresh sheets and a “dirty
used” sheet should not be used. No WPAS employee has ever been
disciplined for using soiled linens. In normal circumstances the directive
regarding the use of clean linens should be followed but she cannot say that
it is never permissible to depart from it. It has not come,to her attention
that there have been linen shortages at WPAS although they will inevitably
occur at times. .She was present at the April, 1982, ERC meeting. The
subject of linen was not on the agenda and was not discussed. The working
relationship between WPAS and the hospital emergency departments is
crucial. There must be coordination and cooperation in the interests of
patients. She did, not at first give much credence to a letter written by the
Grievor as President of OPSEU Local 136 on July 17, 1982, but because of
the strong accusations it contained decided “to check if there was anything
to it”. She and Lonergan interviewed employees of WPAS and Windsor
I
C - 19-
Central Ambulance Dispatch and concluded that the Griever’s charges were
unfounded. She considers that Griever’s removal of linens from duty
ambulance units and base supply cabinets aggravated any shortage that
might have existed and could have affected patient care; that his
statements to members of hospital staffs that WPAS personnel were taking
their linen supplies discredited WPAS and harmed its relationships; and that
his delay in giving proper patient care at Villa Maria could have caused
harm to the patient. In her opinion the Griever has not been rehabilitated
by counselling or discipline; he shows poor judgment, does not obey orders
and requires close supervision, which cannot be given; he is not trustworthy
and his reinstatement would be “devastating”. It would have been~a bad
effect on other WPAS employees and the Grievor would continue to try to
usurp management’s rights. It was she who recommended the Griever’s
dismissal to Ventura after discussions with Fawcett.
Victor Cooper is an OPSEU Staff Representative responsible for
Local 136. He testified that the subject of linen supplies was discussed at
an ERC meeting in April, 1982, although it was not on the agenda, because
a recent grievance of an A02 had involved the availability of towels. He
was with the Grievor during a meeting about the present grievance when
management said there was a reciprocal arrangement with hospitals for the
exchange of linens. He was not aware that the Grievor was removing
Linens from WPAS.
The Grievor testified that linen shortages have been a
continuing problem at WPAS but got worse in 1982 and management was
not responding to the problem. Linen shortages were discussed at an ERC
meeting in April, 1982. He concedes that call sheets recording supplies
‘:
- 20 -
available in his ambulance unit over the period March-July, 1982 show a
shortage of linens on only two occasions. He visited three hospitals on
July 22 and 23, 1982. At Grace Hospital he asked a nurse (Connors) if
there was a reciprocal agreement between the hospital and WPAS about
the exchange of linens and said that he had never seen one. The nurse had
never seen such an agreement. He also saw Den&on who said the hospital
did not mind lending linens but they were not just to be taken. Chappell,
whom he saw the next day, confirmed that there was no such agreement.
He made no remarks about WPAS except to say that he had been told that
exchanges were an accepted practice and that there was an agreement
about it. At Windsor Western Hospital he asked. a nurse (Krugel) if the
hospital had an agreement with WPAS about the exchange of linens and, if
so, could he have a copy. She knew nothing of such an agreement. He
made no remarks about the standard of patient care or the policy regarding
linens at WPAS. At Hotel Dieu Hospital he spoke to an employee, whose
name he does not recall, who thought that the matter was not important.
He made no remarks about WPAS. He obtained receipts for all the linens
he had returned to the hospitals. These were linens that did not belong to
WPAS and their use by WPAS was unauthorized. He returned them to the
hospitals to show WPAS that they could not function with their own supply.
He now thinks he should have told the management of WPAS what he was
doing but believes he helped ‘WPAS in its relationships with the hospitals
because they were getting their linens back. As for the Villa Maria
incident, he considered that he was being ordered to break a rule but was
‘worried about the possibility of discipline if he refused. There were only
5 sheets in the ambulance unit at the start of the shift, the shift supervisor
had none and he could not get into the spare vehicle for a further supply.
He did not immediately examine the patient who was to be picked up on his
*
.I - 21 -
arrival at Villa Maria. Neither he nor his partner on the call, Rollo, has
been disciplined for the incident. He believes that if reinstated he could
work well for WPAS despite his past criticisms of management and that
management is now more ready to look at problems. He has taken a union-
sponsored health and safety course and in April, 1983, his offer to teach
the subject to WPAS employees was accepted. He considers that he is
being sacrificed for having “a management interest” and does not know why
management would not trust him.
It is submitted by counsel to the Employer that a trust
relationship must exist between employer and employee; that a high
standard of trust is required here because of the nature of the business of
WPASand the impossibility of giving closer supervision to employees; and
that the Grievor has breached his duty and broken the trust relationship.
The unauthorized removal by the Grievor of linens in the care and custody
of WPAS disrupted the system of linen supply that depends on both use of
WPASs own linens and exchanges of its linens with those of hospitals in the
area and so was an interference with the service being performed by
WPAS. If there was a shortage of linens the matter should have been
raised directly with management. There had been no complaints from
hospitals about shortages. The Crievor’s, visits to the hospitals were an
attempt to discredit WPAS, not to make a casual inquiry about the
existence of an exchange agreement. The relationship of WPAS with its
“clientele”, the hospitals, was involved and the Employer had to
investigate. The fact that the hospitals proved not to be unduly concerned
despite the Griever’s actions was due to the past good reputation of WPAS.
In the Villa Maria incident the Grievor was more concerned with making an
issue about linens than with the welfare of the patient and the delay caused
!
- 22 -
by him was potentially harmful to the patient. The linen incident arose
shortly after the Villa Maria incident and so they were dealt with together
for disciplinary purposes. The Griever’s conduct warranted discipline and
dismissal was the only possible penalty. His employment record as a whole
and his failure to recognize his duty to the Employer argue against
mitigation of that penalty. Counsel submits that the Board must consider
the question of the Griever’s bona fides, the crucial importance of trust to
the working relationship of the Grievor both with the Employer and with
other employees, and the degree of probability that he will “change his
ways”. Should the Board find that the Griever’s misconduct did not warrant
summary dismissal it should not order reinstatement but might consider a
monetary award to the Grievor.
It is contended by counsel to the Grievor that the Employer has
exaggerated the seriousness of the Crievor’s removal of linens and his visits
to the hospitals. Although he did not teIl management he was returning
sheets to the hospitals, there was no insubordination involved since no
order was being disobeyed, and the act was not one of theft or
misappropriation. The Griever’s account of his conversations during his
visits to the hospitals is consistent with the reaction of hospital personnel.
No disruption of the operations of WPAS resulted and no harm to WPAS
vis-a-vis the hospitals was caused. It was the Griever’s honest belief that
what he was doing was in the interests, of proper health care and the
welfare of patients. In the Villa Maria incident the Grievor followed
Marier’s order and the incident is not evidence of poor patient care. If the
linen incident does not support the dismissal it ls a culminating incident
and only the Griever’s record of discipline and not that of counselling may
be relied upon by the Employer. Counsel argued that the Employer has not
- 23 -
discharged the onus of proving the case for dismissal.
As will appear, the Board does not view the case as one
involving the doctrine of the culminating incident. However, that is one of
the issues before us and two particular submissions of counsel to the
Grievor on the point require a response.
By letter dated July 23, 1982, the Griever was disciplined for
misconduct that took place on June 25, 1982. The matter ultimately
became the subject of a Board decision, Heath, 424/82, which upheld the
Employer’s disciplinary action but modified the penalty imposed. Counsel
argued that because the linen incident occurred before the earlier
discipline, the latter cannot be used to support disciplinary action for the
linen incident if it is a culminating incident. It seems to us that, if the
doctrine were applicable here, the dates to be compared would be the two
dates when disciplinary action was taken by the Employer, that is, July 23,
1982, and August 18, 1982.
Counsel also argues that because the Grievor was not
separately disciplined as a result of the Villa Maria incident, it too cannot
be used as an instance of blameworthy conduct in support of the
disciplinary ,action taken against him for the linen incident. The rationale
of the doctrine is that there having been no discipline and so no action of
the employer amenable to challenge by way of the grievance procedure,
the earlier conduct may not be used to the prejudice of the employee in a
later disciplinary proceeding. We believe that if we were considering the
linen incident as a culminating incident it would be wrong for the Board to
disregard the Villa Maria incident. We do not have present here the
-24-
conditions that normally militate against the use of prior “undisciplined”
conduct. The interval between the Villa Maria incident and the linen
incident was not more than one week and the significance of the first
incident was quickly overshadowed by that of the second. The
circumstance is not that of an employer who, without representing it to the
employee as being disciplinary, places an entry on his employment record
and later seeks to use it in a disciplinary context. As well, the Griever’s
conduct in the Villa Maria incident cannot reasonably have been thought of
as blameless by the Grievor himself. Finally, it has not been suggested
that the Grievor was taken by surprise by the introduction at the hearing of
extensive evidence concerning the Villa Maria incident or that he was not
able to defend his interests by presenting evidence of his own on the
subject.
This case is about the dismissal of the Grievor and the questions
whether or not the conduct that led to his dismissal warranted discipline
and, if so, whether or not the disciplinary penalty of dismissal was
commensurate with that conduct. Thus it is only upon the issues between
the parties directly related to the conduct and resulting dismissal of the
Grievor that the Board is called to adjudicate.
The Board is not here trying the quality of the service being
performed by WPAS, or the degree of competence of its management, or
the wisdom of its policy with respect to linen supplies. Notwithstanding
that, inescapably, there is evidence before the Board touching .on those
matters, they do not present issues as to which the Board is required to
make findings of fact.
- 25 -
Further, the case is not that of an employee making public
disclosure of actual or suspected wrongdoing. Although in a business sense
the hospitals may be said to be one of the WPAS’s “publics”, technically the
Grievor did not ‘go public” with his accusations. Perhaps more
significantly, the Griever claims that he was trying to prove a point to
WPAS, not that what has been called ‘the public need to know” was
involved. In our opinion, therefore, there is no basis for the consideration
of the principle endorsed by this Board in La Riviere, 147/77 and
MacAlpine, 241/82, to the effect that employees must be free, acting
properly and conscientiously, to express publicly reasonable suspicions of
impropriety by their employer.
Finally, the case is not about any activity of the Grievor in his
capacity as President of OPSEU Local 136, but is about his conduct as an
employee and in relation to his employment. The letter written by the
Grievor on July 17, 1982, in his union capacity makes reference to:
“...mismanagement and possible inappropriate use of
property of the Ministry of Health by management
officials of Windsor Provincial Ambulance Service.”
In the view we take of the case it is unnecessary to consider whether or not
the letter represents a proper exercise of the responsibilities of the
Griever’s union office. Rather, the relevance of the letter lies in the fact
that it influenced the Employer to expand its investigation of the affair.
We have concluded, based on the evidence as a whole, that the
Villa Maria incident and the linen incident were, together, part of a scheme
initiated and carried forward by the Grievor with intent to defame and so
- 26 -
to discredit WPAS in the eyes of the health care institutions for whom, in
the main, its services are performed.
As to the Villa Maria incident, the Grievor claims that at the
start of his shift he was unable to obtain the minimum requirement of
sheets to equip his ambulance unit. We are apparently to assume~that no
opportunity arose to replenish the supply of sheets between the start of the
shift at 0700 hours and 1000 hours (approximately) when the trip to Villa
Maria was made. From the time of his arrival at Villa Maria the Grievor
was obviously determined to make an issue of the supply of sheets, an
object from which he was not deterred by the fact that a patient was
awaiting transportation to hospital. Apart from the minor role played by
his partner, Rollo, which, so far as the evidence, before us goes, appears to
fall short of complicity, the Grievor acted alone throughout. The
telephone call to Marier; the follow-up call to the dispatcher on duty in
order to have Marier’s orderi repeated and recorded on tape; the insistence
on seeing the Villa Maria* Administrator; the initial failure to accept the
offer of a fresh sheet; the professed concern about being disciplined for not -
using a soiled sheet and the request for support if that happened; the
request for a professional opinion about the use of soiled sheets -how is all
of this to be construed, coming as it did from an experienced A02? The
conclusion compelled by the facts is that the Griever’s purpose was not to
avoid using a soiled sheet to transport a patient (there was a ready answer
to any such concern in the offer of a fresh sheet) but to create doubt about
WPAS operating practices. Morrison’s telephone. call to Marier was the
immediate result.
- 27 -
As to the linen incident, the testimony of certain of the A023
satisfies us that during the summer of 1982 there were problems at WPAS
regarding the availability of linens. But that testimony establishes only
that employees had to search out the required supplies which, one way or
another, were always forthcoming. The situation must have been
aggravating for individual employees and, indeed, left something to be
desired from an operational point of view. Yet there was no concerted
attempt by employees to have it corrected by management action. There
is conflicting evidence as to whether the subject of linens was raised at
ERC meetings and all that may be said is that there is no record of any
such discussions. There were no complaints about linen shortages from
outside WPAS; in particular no complaints from the hospitals that their
supplies of linens were being depleted by WPAS.
In this setting the Grievor made the singular decision to remove
linens from WPAS duty ambulance units and base supply cabinets and to
deliver them to the hospitals whose names were stamped on them. Again
he acted alone. His fellow employees, except for those who witnessed his
actions, were unaware that he was removing linens. Neither WPAS
management nor the Union was aware that he was removing linens. This
patently improper behaviour was compounded by the Griever’s more serious
misconduct during his visits to Grace and Windsor Western hospitals. As to
what took place on those occasions, we accept the testimony of Dennison,
Canaran and Adamson in preference to that of the Grievor. There is
simply no reason ‘to think that their respective versions of events are
exaggerations or fabrications. We find that at both Grace and Windsor
Western the Grievor accused WPAS of following a deliberate practice of
taking hospital linens to meet its requirements despite having a,budget for
the purpose, which was, in effect, an unfounded accusation of dishonesty;
‘,, . .
- 28 -
and that he caused a directive to be issued by Adamson that no hospital
linens were to be taken from Windsor Western by WPAS personnel, which
was likely to interfere with the existing and accepted system of linen
exchanges.
We are’of the view that the Griever’s conduct, looked at in its
entirety, was calculated to damage the reputation and prejudice the
interests of WPAS. It therefore constituted a breach of the duty of fidelity
owed by the Grievor to the Employer, that is, to WPAS and, by extension,
to the Ministry.
It is our conclusion that the Employer had just cause to take
disciplinary action against the Grievor and that dismissal was a justifiable
penalty in the circumstances.
The Crievor’s conduct was of such a nature as to preclude the
continuation of the employer-employee relationship. The Griever was in a
position of special trust and responsibility. He was part of a small,
specialized work group; he could not be closely supervised; and in the
normal course of his employment he was in contact with staff members of
health care institutions and members of the public. In carrying on a
personal campaign of denigration against WPAS he ignored the obligations
of his position and abused the confidence of the Employer.
Where arbitrators have exercised their remedial authority to
reinstate employees, they have first satisfied themselves, insofar as that
may be done, that the conduct they have condemned will not continue or
recur. We do not observe in the Griever any realization of his failure of
4’ I
I - 29 -
duty or any resolve to conform in future to a standard of conduct
reasonably to be expected of an employee of WPAS. With reference to the
linen incident he believes~ that he helped the relationship between WPAS
and the hospitals because the hospitals were getting their linens back, and
thinks that he should have told the management of WPAS what he was
doing. He expresses the opinion that management is now more amenable to
discussing problems, which he appears to ,regard as a measure of
vindication. The management of WPAS continues, as it should, to deal with
the Griever as an officer of the union that represents WPAS employees.
That fact is not, in our opinion, either evidence of his acceptability as an
employee or relevant to the question of reinstatement.
In other circumstances, the quality of the Griever’s service, as
evidenced by a record of counselling reports and equivocal evaluations,
would almost certainly exclude mitigation of the penalty of dismissal.
Nevertheless, we cannot but~be acutely aware that, given present economic
conditions,and the probability that the Griever will have to either change
his occupation or leave Windsor to continue in it, summary dismissal, works
a hardship on the Grievor. That is to say, dismissal, standing alone is an
excessive penalty in the circumstances.
We therefore believe that the case is one in which the Board’s
discretionary power under Section 19(3) of the Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act may properly be exercised with a view to alleviating the
initial financial impact on the Griever of the termination of his
employment. We find support for this approach in the reasoning contained
in the following cases.
, -;
- 30 -
In Simunovic, 28/76 & 46/77 this Board, after concluding,
because of certain mitigating factors, that “outright discharge of the
griever is too harsh a penalty” stated:
In these circumstances we are unable to
countenance an argument for the griever’s
reinstatement. The rehabilitative theory of
employment discipline, which this Board has applied
from time to time, clearly relies on the
demonstrated potential of an employee to alter
patterns of improper conduct and to comply with
expected norms. All of the evidence available to us
militates against a conclusion that the griever is
likely to reshape his conduct if reinstated, and we
must thus conclude that reinstatement would be an
inappropriate remedy in this case.
The Board went on to make a monetary award to the griever in
the following words:
Taking into account all of the factors discussed
above, we are of the view that a monetary payment
in mitigation of the dismissal penalty imposed is the
only way in which a just result can be obtained for
both the griever and the Employer. We are aware
that this 4s an unorthodox solution in dismissal
cases, but our discretion under s. 18 appears to be
wide enough to permit us to take such an approach,
and we consider it to be justified by the unusual
circumstances of this case.
In Lily Cups Ltd. and Printing Specialities and Paper Products
Union, Local 466, (1981) 3 L.A.C.(M) 6 (I4.D. Brown) the Board, having
found that “there is little likelihood of a future acceptable employment
relationship” should the griever be reinstated, concluded that ‘Such a
remedy would not be in the future best interest of the griever or the
company”. The Board refused to reinstate the griever and substituted a
suspension followed by compensation for a stated period from the date of
.
- 31 -
the discharge.
In Re: Extend&are Ltd. (St. Catharines) and Ontario Nurses’
Association, (1981) 3 L.A.C.(M) 243 (Adams) the Board found the griever to
Abe unsuited to the position from which she had been dismissed and, having
concluded that reinstatement would not be an appropriate remedy, varied
the penalty of dismissal by awarding a money payment in lieu of
reinstatement.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the Employer pay to the
Grievor, within 30 days from the date of this decision, a severance
payment equivalent to six months’ salary calculated at the rate applicable
to the Griever’s position on the date of his dismissal.
It is to be noted that the monetary award made herein is not in
the nature of damages or of payment in lieu of notice of termination but is
made under authority of Section 19(3) of The Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act.
We have already expressed to counsel, and we repeat here, our
appreciation of the professional manner in which their demanding
presentations were made.
- 32 -
DATED at Consecon, Ontario, this 17th day of August, 1983.
P.M. Draper, Vice-Chairman I
“I dissent” (see attached)
E.J. Bounsall, Member
N.J. Cazzola, Member
2:1400 .
7:3610
7:4000
7:4300
7:4310
7:4422
7~4426
las
s
.
2 DISSENT
I dissent most strongly with the decision of dis-
missal and the small amount of the monetary payment in
lieu of reinstatement. In addition, I disagree with the
conclusion drawn as the Grievor's purpose and motives
in both the Villa Maria incidents and the return of sheets
to the hospitals, and, in part, with the facts as outlined.
The evidence of Mary Morrison, Director of Nursing at
Villa Maria, was that the patient to be transported was in
"poor physical state, but not critical", and 11 in a poor
state of health; needs to see a doctor, and can't wait
2 hours". After expressing her concern to Conrad Marier
over the use of soiled sheets and hoped the ambulance
attendents were not being told to do so, she "considered
the incident closed and had no intention to do anything
further".
At no time did Jean Marie Adamson, Director of -
Nursing at Windsor Western Hospital, speak directly to the
Grievor . She received all her information re linens from
Manakin Canaran, Head Nurse in Emergency. The next day, she
unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Grievor twice, by
telephone and then in her capacity as Acting Administrator,
issued her memo that was WPAS "use their own linen and none
of ours" as virtually her last act before departing on
vacation.
1 b -2-
In the Villa Maria incident the transporting of the
patient was ,a Code 2 (low priority) call and only 16 minutes
had elapsed between the depositing~of one resident and the
transporting of Mrs. Claypoole, with Mary Morrison testifying
to her condition as being one of "she can't wait two hours".
It would be stretching our credulity in the extreme to ask
us to believe.this 16 minute delay, during which time the
Grievor was quite legitimately querying the order to transport
the patient on a used sheet directly contrary to the
Ambulance Act regulations, would be harmful to the patient,
or endanger her health and welfare, and of course no
evidence was presented that it did. This is therefore not
an example of poor patient care and no discipline was ever
attempted. Irrespective of whether the,linen incident
quickly overtook and overshadowed the Villa Maria incident,
it is very doubtful that a successful disciplinary action
could ever have resulted from Villa Maria and the entire
incident should be disregarded as being in any way
detrimental to the Grievor, and rather an illustration of
his concern with both proper patient care and the lack of
adequate linen supplies. Indeed there was .no evidence
presented from management witnesses that the Villa Maria
incident was dealt together with the linen incident in
their minds for this disciplinary purpose.
I disagree totally with the conclusion that the villa
Maria incident was initiated by the Grievor as part of a
scheme to defame or discredit WPAS. If the Grievor
concerned for months over the adequacy of linen supplies
and fully conversant with the Ambulance Act and working on
July 15 amidst rumours that he was to be possibly
disciplined for conduct on June 25 (he subsequently was
disciplined on July 25, the matter ultimately becoming the
subject of a Board decision, Heath, 424/82, in which a
minor one day suspension was determined), was ever to be
concerned (or even a little paranoid) lest he be
disciplined for transporting a patient on used sheets, it
was then. This careful recording through dispatch of the
orders to do so was quite understandable.
As far as defaming the WPAS, Mary Morrison, when
interviewed by Lonergan 2-3 weeks later testified that "she
had no problems with WPAS and linens in the past, had
really no problems that day and foresaw no problems in the
future".
With respect to the return of linen to Grace and
Windsor Western hospitals, while it is true that the
Grievor acted on his own without the approval of his
Union, he did so with a considerable background of concern
over linen supply and shortages. As far back as 1981, in
a report to the membership of OPSEU local 136, it is
stated management conceded to the positioning of
collection bags in nursing homes and hospitals rather than
carry infectious linens in the cars. The evidence was
that these still were not provided.
Evidence was clear from Victor Cooper, OPSEU staff
representative, John Parent, Sec.-Treas. Local 136, and
the Grievor that linen shortages were discussed at an ERC
meeting in early 1982. Although not formally on the agenda
the testimony was that it arose informally over discussions
regarding a Joseph Nardone discipline.
- 4 -
The Grievor's letter of July 17, written.in his
capacity as Union President stated "the local union does not
believe that the reusing of soiled linen is the policy of
the Ministry of Health" and further suggests a method of
determining the need - "you compare the number of calls
completed through the despatch centre with the amount of
linen cleaned for the same period." This solution surely
cannot reasonably be taken to illustrate that the Grievor
was usurping a management function. Indeed, if the
suggestion had been responded to, this grievance would not
be before us.
The reasonable question to ask is "Were the Griever's
and Union Local's concerns reasonable and justified?" The
evidence was that there were only 186 sheets in the system
and the minimum ~average number of ambulance calls was 320
per week, and with 2 clean sheets per call, even if 23%
do not use the stretcher, a minimum of 480 clean sheets
would need to be available.
Ambulance personnel Amlin, Buckler, Wessel Skomash,
and Parent all testified to sheet shortages in the late
spring and.early summer.
All nursing personnel testifying in the Hearing testified
that it was poor patient care to reuse sheets on ambulance
stretchers, due to the danger of communicable disease
transfer, except for the obvious life and death transfers.
The return by the Grievor of 27 sheets in total to
Grace and Windsor hospitals did not in itself endanger the
supply since on July 14 (8 days earlier), 50 new sheets had
been added.
-5-
The Griever's purpose, no doubt, was to highlight this
shortage by the return of the clearly identified hospital
sheets to the respective hospitals, in order that adequate
sheets be supplied. In this he was eminently successful in
partially redressing the need- in that 100 new sheets were
further added on August 6/82.
The Ministry was rightly concerned over possible damage
to relations between WPAS and the area hospitals as a
result of the linen returns and any statements that the
Grievor made concerning the unauthorized use of hospital
sheets by WPAS personnel. However, from Lonergan's testimony
of his investigation of August lo- 12, it can only be
concluded that no breakdown in relations had occurred at all,
and the Ministry concern had been blown all out of
proportion. Mr. Hastings of Metropolitan Hospital had."no
problem". Major Docherty of Grace Hospital was "not
overly concerned." Mrs. Gray of Hotel Dieu "wasn't aware of
any problem." Gordon Walker of Windsor Western was aware
of the Adamson posting but "unaware of any real problem but
if so would get back in touch." He never did. It is also
interesting to note that the Adamson posting was identical
in intent with that issued by Fawcett, Manager of WPAS on
November 3, 1982.
In summary, no breakdown in relations with the hospitals
was uncovered and thus if it had been the intent of the
Grievor, by his remarks or actions, to discredit WPAS in
the estimation of the hospitals, he was totally unsuccessful
in doing so. Clearly his intent was to highlight to
management the linen shortages, in order to obtain a greater
supply, in which I ~point out again he was successful.
; **‘i -6-
1
Rather than damaging the reputation or prejudicing the
interests of WPAS, he was acting to improve their patient
care and therefore acting in the best interests of the
Service. He should have been rewarded, not penalized.
No doubt the Ministry was inconvenienced by conducting
an investigation, and it seems they were irritated by
Heath's "attempting to usurp management's rights". However
the final result for the Service was positive and an
enlightened management would welcome the final outcome re
increased linen supply, encourage initiatives from
employees (particularly from Union officials).
Moreover the Grievor did not commit theft, nor did he
disobey any orders. I must find that the Griever's intent
certainly and his actions do not in any way warrant a
dismissal. In terms of their working together, as late as
May 1983, Management accepted a proposal of the Grievor that
he teach a course in Health and Safety to supervisors and
members.
The penalty should at most have been a 3 day suspension
if anything. In the light that the Grievor was employed for
9 years for WPAS and for almost two years previous to that
in ambulance service work and it was thus his profession, the
6 month severance pay is ridiculously low. I feel strongly
that under the circumstances where Management simply wishes
to rid themselves of an employee who bothers them with his
initiative and ideas, the settlement should encompass salary
and tuition for up to 3 years of retraining in another field.
AUGUST 1983
Dr. E.J. Bounsall