HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0579.Lusis.83-06-23 Decision. ”.. ... .... .- *-
__ .. . . . .... . .
. -.
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO. ONTARIO. M5G 1Z8 -SUITE 2100
Between:
Before:
TELEPHONE: 416/598- 0688
579 / 82
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEU (Mr. G. Lusis) Grievor
- And -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional
Services) Employer
R.L, Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman
S. Kaufman Member
A.M. McCuaig Member
For the Grievor:
M . Mercer-DeSant is
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer: J.F. Benedict
Manager , Staff Relations
Ministry of Correctional Services
Hearings: February 11, 1983
April 7, 1983
May 30, 1983
-2-
The Grievor, Gunars Lusis, was discharged on November
15,
1982 for his alleged negligence in the escape of a prisoner
from St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto on the night of November
9. In a grievance dated November
15, the Grievor alleges dismissal
without just cause and by way of settlement seeks reinstatement
with no loss of benefits.
The Grievor aged 56 was employed as a Correctional
Officer 2 at the Toronto Jail and had been employed with the
Ministry at that location since 1975. In a letter of termination
to the Grievor, Superintendent
C. C. DeGrandis concluded:
"that the escape of inmate H. was aided by your
obvious and self admitted negligence and
I
further conclude that if such negligence had
not taken place, inmate
H. would not have had
the opportunity to escape as he did."
The Superintendent's allegations of negligence against
the Grievor were based upon the following findings of fact (Exhibit
2):
"A) That an ex-inmate on November 8, 1982, was allowed
to visit inmate H. for a period of one hour and
thirty-five minutes, and that you were aware
no
ex-inmates are allowed to visit inmates of the
Toronto Jail without the expressed permission of
the Superintendent, and if such approval is granted,
the visit will be for only twenty minutes, I must
conclude you were negligent in the discharge of your
duties as a Correctional Officer.
B) That you did not inform the Shift Lieutenant
either
on November 8, 1982, or November 9, 1982,
that an ex-inmate, known to you, had on success-
ive
days visited or attempted to visit inmate H.,
I must conclude you were negligent in the discharge
of your duties as a Correctional Officer.
C) That you removed the physical restraints from
inmate
H. (leg irons attached to one leg and the
hospital bed), I must conclude you were negligent
in the discharge
of your duties as a Correctional
Officer.
D) That you allowed inmate H. to go into the washroom
area
to 'wash up' without maintaining constant
and uninterrupted visual contact with him, I must
conclude you were negligent in the discharge of
your duties as a Correctional Officer.''
Mr. H. an inmate at the Toronto Jail was hospitalized
on November 7, 1982 as a result of his having swallowed two spoons.
On November 8, the Grievor was assigned to hospital duty to guard
inmate H. on the 3:00 to 11:00 afternoon shift. He performed the
same function on the same shift on November 9. Inmate H. was
placed in
a room shared with several other patients on the second
floor of St. Michael's Hospital.
The Grievor was experienced in performing Hospital
assignments having done
so approximately 10 to 12 times a year
for a number of years. The Grievor's evidence was uncontested
that he was provided with no information concerning the inmate
by the Supervisor Mr. Swan. It was the Grievor's evidence that
he was simply told the name of the patient and the location of
the Hospital. The Grievor testified
that he did not know inmate
H. personally, but had heard "through the grapevine" that H. had
swallowed two spoons and that he was a known homosexual.
-4-
The evidence is clear that the Grievor allowed
ex-inmate M. and H.'s sister to visit inmate H. for 1 hour
and 35 minutes during the afternoon of November 8. The log
book records the fact that the ex-inmate identified himself
by name and National Parole Board number. The Grievor did
not seek the Superintendent's approval
for that visit although
he did record the particulars of the visit in the log book.
Similarly, on November 9, the same ex-inmate and H.'s sister
visited inmate H. briefly and in so doing left several packs
of cigarettes and three oranges for the inmate. That visit
(admittedly brief) was not recorded in the log book. It is
standard practice that
a log book is maintained by Correctional
Officers in the Hospital in the same fashion as at the Jail.
The sequence of events leading to the escape of inmate
H. on the night of November 9 was a matter of some dispute. The
Grievor offered three separate (and somewhat differing) explanations
as to what transpired. In his Occurrence Report (Exhibit 7), the
Grievor wrote
a brief explanation as follows:
"TO Supt. Mr. C. DeGrandis
Toronto Jail; November 9/82; Time - 23.55
Subject: Escape
of H. from St. Michael's Hospital
Sir,
On the above date I started my shift at 2.30 PM and
at the entrance of the Hospital I met his sister A.H.
and one M. who had visited H. on the previous day as
per log book. I asked them how he was to-day. They
replied OK. We just are going to get him some oranges
and smokes. They came in for 3 minutes. I took over
the shift in the prescribed manner and the evening
-6-
The Grievor testified at the Hearing that he deliberately
left the inmate unattended in the washroom to avoid any potential
complication which might arise
from the Grievor's alleged sexual
preference. The Grievor testified that inmate H. went into the
washroom; came
out again at 9:35 for soap and shampoo; re-entered
the washroom and was allowed to remain unattended for another
7 minutes. The Grievor's testimony was that he entered the washroom
at 9:42 and observed that inmate H. had escaped by the bathroom
window. The escape was affected by the tying of sheets together
which were attached
to the washroom radiator.
The evidence is clear that the Grievor was greatly
distressed by the escape and had some considerable difficulty
contacting the Jail
on his two-way radio. The Institution was
first advised of the escape shortly before 10:00 p.m. by means
of a garbled message from the Grievor. Support Supervisor Anthony
Walmesley testified that the Grievor was in a ''nervous state''
and "didn't look well" when Walmesely arrived at the Hospital
later that evening. The Grievor's general condition was also
observed in the same fashion by the Toronto Jail Assistant
Superintendent Hugh Nicholson. Two Police Constables from the
City's 52nd Division arrived on the scene promptly following the
escape for the purposes of investigation. Inmate H. was subse-
quently apprehended by the Police on November 30 which was some
20 days after the escape.
-7-
Superintendent DeGrandis assumed his present responsibilities
at the Toronto Jail on August 30, 1982. The Superintendent was forth-
right in his testimony that staff training was a continuing problem
at the Jail.
To his credit, the Superintendent has instituted a
meaningful program to correct that problem. He candidly admitted
that his decision to discharge the Grievor was made without resort
to past disciplinary response for similar incidents at the Jail.
The Superintendent testified that "custody is the heart
of the
Correctional Officer's job and when you fail at that there is not
much left to fail at".
On behalf of the Ministry,
Mr. Benedict cited the relevant
standing orders of the Toronto Jail and the several examples of the
Grievor’s negligence in failure to follow those orders. He argued
that there were no mitigating factors which would justify the
reduction of the penalty. He also ably reviewed the relevant
sections of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, 1978 R.S.O.
Chapter 37, and Regulations 515-78 and 243-79 as they relate to the
Superintendent's responsibilities.
For the Grievor,
Ms. Mercer-DeSantis admitted that the
Grievor had made errors in judgement which did support the imposition
of some disciplinary penalty. However, the thrust of her argument
was that the penalty of discharge was too severe in all the circum-
stances.
.. - - I -. _. ." . ." ...
- . -
-5-
was quiet. At 9 PM H. asked the nurse if he
could have
a towel and clean pajamas for the
night. At 9:30 PM I uncuffed Harris and let
him in the washroom. At about 21.35 I went
to check and found the window open and tied
sheets hanging
to the floor below. I radioed
control and they received the message at approx
21.40. The Police arrived about 5 minutes
later and started their investigation.
I realize now it was my duty to be with him
while he was in the- washroom, but since there
was only one exit and I had checked the window
and could not open it assumed the place escape
proof.
In conclusion I would like to ask for leniency
when considering this occurrence as my life truly
depends
on my work at the Institution.
G. Lusis, C.O.2"
At a meeting on November 12 with Superintendent DeGrandis,
the Grievor admitted that he had removed all physical restraints
from inmate H. at approximately 9:30 p.m. for the purpose of allowing
the inmate
"to wash up". The Grievor admitted that he had not positioned
himself to watch inmate H. In fact, the washroom door was closed. The
Grievor also stated that inmate H. was in the washroom some 10 to
12 minutes unattended. In his evidence, the Superintendent testified
that he got the impression from the Grievor's account during the
meeting of November 12 that the Grievor had been watching television
while the inmate was left unattended in the washroom.
-8-
By way of general background, it is clear that the
Superintendent of each institution within the Ministry had the
authority and the duty to issue directions to all staff which
are commonly referred
to as Standing Orders. The Standing
Orders direct staff in the form of operational guidelines but
cannot be considered as all encompassing. Clearly, the
Standing Orders are designed
to be interpreted and enforced by
the staff in a reasonable and intelligent manner. In the
instant Grievance, the relevant Standing Orders
at the Toronto
Jail were set out in Exhibits 5a, 5b, 5c and 6. In the forward
to Exhibit 5a it stated:
"It is the duty of all employees to read and
understand the standing orders. On return to duty from vacation, sickness or days off,
employees wi 11 acquaint themsel ves with newly
published Standing Orders
or amendments."
Also, it is stated:
"It is not the intention of these Standing Orders
to deal with every situation that may arise; they
are issued as
a guide and should be interpreted
and enforced in a reasonable and intelligent manner."
In Exhibit 5a the relevant provisions of the Standing Orders
bear repetition under the heading
of "Reporting and Discharge of
Duties by Officers":
"8. Ensure the security of all inmates under
his/her control, follow all instructions
and procedures in regard to custody, and take all additional precautions to main-
tain the security of the institution."
-9-
"10. Before completing his/her tour of duty
the staff member shall make
a written
report
to the Shift Supervisor of any
unusual incidents which may have occurred
during his
tour."
.
"12. All staff members should display
initiative
and common sense when dealing
with inmates. This
sort of action can
prevent problems for you and other staff
members. I'
The following provision is relevant under "Security
Checks" in Exhibit 5a:
"Security is one of the main tasks in our ,
Institutions, and if all staff are security
conscious, then
our problems will be minimized.
Therefore, all officers must be alert
and
observant at all times for any unusual incidents
or behaviour."
Under "Visits by Ex-Inmates" Exhibit 5a states:
"Visits by ex-inmates are not permitted without
the approval of the Superintendent."
In "Reporting Escapes'' it stated that:
"The escort officer(s) will immediately report
the escape
to the Shift Supervisor and submit
a report detailing who escaped, names of those
in the party, area of escape and other informa-
tion which could be of value."
- 10 -
Standard Order Number 29 entitled "Community Hospital
Duties" is also
part of Exhibit 5a. The following provisions of
Order Number 29 are relevant:
"29. a. 1. Only permanent Correctional Officers will
carry
out hospital duties. Staff class-
ified
as casual officers may be employed
in the institution
to replace officers
carrying
out hospital duties, but are not
to carry out such duties themselves."
"29. a. 3. As far as practical, all operational
routines and institutional regulations
that pertain to the jail, will be applied to hospitalized inmates."
"29. a. 4. Visitors will be allowed as laid down in
the Regulations
made under the Ministry of
Correctional Services
Act, but subject to
the requirements of the hospital medical
staff and in conformity with the hospital
visiting hours. As in the institution, no
articles will be allowed to pass between
the inmate and visitor."
"29. b. 7. When the officer needs to be out of sight
of the inmate for a short period of time, he
should endeavour
to have a hospital security
officer,
a police officer or an employee of
the
Toronto Jail replace him for that period.
If these persons are
not available, the
escorting officer should radio the jail and
explain the circumstances. In the event an
emergent situation occurs and the officer
must leave the inmate/patient unattended for
any period of time, the handcuffs, leg irons
will be used.
When the officer returns to
duty, the institution should be advised by
radio and the facts entered in the Hospital
Duty Log."
- 11 -
"29. b. 8. The Shift Supervisor will visit the hospital
at least once in every shift to examine
security/lcontrol
, escorting staff's well
being etc. and enter the appropriate obser-
vations in the Hospital Duty Log
Book and
the Shift Supervisor's
Duty Log on his
return to the institution. In the event the
Shift Supervisor is the officer in charge of
the jail, he may designate a Senior Correctional
Officer to carry out the hospital rounds."
"29. c. In all cases where hospital duty is required,
the Shift Supervisor
will determine that the
officers detailed for hospital duty are sui table
for assignment, bearing in mind such considera-
tion as the physique of the inmate, the charges
against him or the sentence he is serving and
other relevant issues. The Shift Supervisor
should he deem it necessary assign two officers
to an inmate/patient if his charges and behaviour
warrant this action."
The Standing Orders for Hospital Duty at the Toronto
Jail were revised on July 30, 1982. The following Sections are
rel evant (Exhibit 6) :
"b) As far as practical, all operational routines
and institutional regulations that normally
pertain in the jail
will be applied to a
hospitalized inmate."
'I c ) Visiting will be allowed as laid down in the
regulations, but also subject to the require-
ments of the hospital medical staff and in
conformity with the hospital visiting hours.
Extra or special visits must be applied for in
the normal manner. No articles will be allowed
to pass between the inmate and his visitor(s),
and the duty officer
will remain within sight
and hearing of the inmate."
- 12 -
'm) If it is necessary to leave the inmate,
for the purpose of using the washroom, etc.,
the staff member should attempt to have a
hospital orderly or security officer watch
the inmate in the staff member's absence.
During this type of activity, both handcuffs
and leg irons
will be applied, with one
bracelet of the leg iron affixed to the bed."
"n) In the event you cannot carry out your duty,
inform the institution as expeditiously
as
possible; i.e. by telephone or hand radio.
Attempt to obtain hospital security officer
or
police officer assistance until such time as
a replacement arrives from the institutuion."
"p) If an inmate does escape your custody, first
phone the police, give a description and any
other details required from the documents in
your possession, record the name of the police
officer, and the time the information was given.
Second, alert hospital security staff or ask
other hospital staff to do
so, and advise your
s upervi sor immediately. I'
The Board accepts the Grievor's evidence that he was not
advised of nor did he receive a copy of the Institution's revised
Hospital Duty Standing Orders of July 30, 1982. However, the fact
remains that the Grievor was an experienced officer in Hospital
Duty, was aware of the 1975 Standing Orders and accordingly knew
the general Hospital routine.
In assessing the evidence, the Board finds that the
Grievor was honest in his testimony and that his brief Occurrence
Report reflected his nervous condition following the escape.
We
are of the view that he was somewhat confused and disorientated
by the ordeal. However, we find that the Grievor could have been
- 13 -
more explicit in his recollection of the events when he spoke
with Superintendent DeGrandis
on November 12.
Nevertheless, the Grievor's responses leading to the
escape
of inmate H. establish beyond any doubt that he was
negligent in the performance of his duties. There is no evidence
that the Grievor was in any way involved in a criminal conspiracy
to facilitate the escape. However, beginning with the unauthorized
visit of ex-inmate M., the Grievor's actions did demonstrate
negligence on his part. We accept the Grievor's evidence that he
attempted
to prevent the visit of ex-inmate M. and yet his own
evidence indicates that he was not in control of the situation
on November 8. Clearly, he was negligent in releasing the physical
restraints
from inmate H. and allowing him to remain in the washroom
without constant visual contact. The Grievor's rationale for
failure to keep the inmate under constant visual contact is
totally inconsistent with his duties as a Correctional Officer.
In that regard, the sexual orientation of an inmate is an
irrelevant consideration. The duty of a Correctional Officer
is to be alert and observant at all times which in turn necessitates
constant and uninterrupted visual contact of an inmate. The privacy
of an inmate is a secondary consideration to the primary and over-
riding consideration of the custody of an inmate.
In its presentation, the Union focused much attention to
the issue of double escort for hospital duty. That issue has been
- 14 -
a constant concern to the Union, as indicated by the evidence,
and has been the subject of lengthy negotiations between the
Parties. Arbitrator Howard Brown recognized the merits of the
issue in his interest Award affecting the Parties dated July 25,
1982 (See pages 11, 12 and 13 of the Brown Award).
For the purposes of the instant Arbitration, the Board
finds that the two patrol issue is not a relevant factor. We
accept the evidence of Superintendent DeGrandis that the Grievor's
Hospital assignment on November 8 and 9 of inmate H. was not of
sufficient complexity to
warrant the double escort.
The more interesting aspect of the instant Grievance is
the appropriateness of the penalty imposed. Relevant considerations
affecting the mitigation of penalty were summarized by the late
Arbitrator Judge R. W. Reville in his frequently quoted Award of
Re United Steelworkers of America, Local 3257 and The Steel Equipment
Co. Ltd. (1964), 14 L.A.C. 356. The rationale of Arbitrator Reville
bears repetition
at pages 356 - 358.
"It has been held, however, that where an arbitration
board has the power to mitigate the penalty imposed
on a grievor, the board should take into considera-
tion in arriving
at its decision the following factors:
1. The previous good record of the grievor - Re
United Steelworkers of America, Local 5297, and
Frontenac Floor & Wall Tile Ltd. (1957), 8 L.A.C.
105.
- 15 -
2. The long service of the grievor - Re U.A.W.,
Local 28, and C.C.M. Co. (1954), 5 L.A.C.
1883.
3. Whether or not the offence was an isolated
incident in the employment history of the
grievor
- Re Amalgamated Ass'n of Street,
Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
Ameri ca and Sandwi ch , Wi ndsor & Amherstburg
Railway Co. (1951), 2 L.A.C. 684.
4. Provocation - Re United Brotherhood of
Carpenters, Local 2537, and KVP Co. Ltd. (1962),
12 L.A.C. 386.
5. Whether the offence was committed on the spur
of the moment as a result of a momentary
aberration, due to strong emotional impulses,
or whether the offence was premeditated
- Re
U.A.W., Local 112 and DeHavilland Aircraft of
Canada Ltd., being an award of Professor Bora
Laskin dated March 13, 1959 (unreported).
6. Whether the penalty imposed has created a
special economic hardship for the grievor in
the light of his particular circumstances
-
Re U.A.W., local 127, and Ontario Steel Products
Ltd. (1962), 13 L.A.C. 197.
either unwritten or posted, have not been
uniformly enforced, thus constituting a form of
discrimination
- Re Retail , Wholesale & Department
Store Union, Local 414, and Dominion Sotres Ltd.
(1961), 12 L.A.C. 164.
7. Evidence that the company rules of conduct,
8. Circumstances negativing intent, e.g., likelihood
that the grievor misunderstood the nature or
intent of an order given to him, and as a result
disobeyed it - Re United Electrical Workers , Local
524, and Canadian General Electric Co. (1957), 8
L.A.C. 132.
9. The seriousness of the offence in terms of company
policy and company obligations
- Re Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers , Local 598, and Falconbridge
Nickel Mines Ltd. (1956), 7 L.A.C. 130.
10. Any other circumstances which the board should
properly take into consideration, e.g., (a)
failure to the grievor to apologize and settle
the matter after being given an opportunity to
do
so - Re U.A.W., Local 456, and Mueller Ltd.
- 16 -
(1958), 8 L.A.C. 144; (b) where a grievor
was discharged
for improper driving of company
equipment and the company, for the first time,
issued rules governing the conduct of drivers
after the discharge, this was held
to be a
mitigating circumstances - Re Int'l Brotherhood
of Teamsters and Riverside Construction Co.
(1961), 12 L.A.C. 145; (c) failure of the
company
to permit the grievor to explain or deny
the alleged offence
- Re Int'l Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local 979, and Leamington Transport
(Western) Ltd. .(1961), 12 L.A.C. 147."
Admittedly, the Reville Award related to the industrial
setting; however, the rationale of that Award has had general
acceptability throughout the field of Arbitration.
The Board is of the opinion that some of the considerations
summarized in the Reville Award apply
to the instant Grievance. The
Grievor's work record is generally satisfactory. The reference made
in the letter of termination to a similar incident involving the
Grievor in 1978 was an improper consideration for the implementation
of the penalty of discharge, having regard to a memorandum of agreement
signed between the Parties effective May 1, 1981 (Exhibit 16). In
addition, the Grievor was co-operative in the investigation of the
escape, and candidly admitted his numerous errors in judgement. The
Grievor was described by Assistant Superintendent Hugh Nicholson as
''one of the most co-operative people I have ever dealt with - he is
a proper gentleman". In our opinion, it is unlikely that the Grievor
would repeat his mistakes in the future. At the Hearing, he was
forthright in his admission that he would never again remove physical
restraints
from a hospitalized inmate nor would he permit a hospitalized
inmate to remain in a washroom unattended.
. ... . ~. .
- 17 -
The Grievor's seniority dates back to January 23, 1975.
It cannot be said that the Grievor has accumulated a lengthy tenure
with the Ministry; however, seven years of continuous employment is
a significant period and accordingly should not be disregarded.
The Grievor's actions leading to the escape of inmate H.
appear to be an isolated incident. Mr. Benedict properly admitted
that fact in his reply argument.
The Board finds that the penalty of discharge does create
an economic hardship on the Grievor bearing in mind his age, the
unlikely prospect of alternate employment with Government in view
of this dismissal, and his unsuccessful attempts to seek alternate
employment.
The Standing Orders of the Toronto Jail as they pertain
to Hospital duty are outdated and are badly in need of revision.
That fact was apparent through much of the evidence and was
acknowledged by both the Superintendent and the Assistant Superin-
tendent. The Board was encouraged to be advised that the Standing
Orders are presently being revised. Hopefully many of the current
problems associated with Hospital attendance by Correctional Officers
will be eliminated. One of the issues that must be addressed is the
acceptable duration of Hospital visits to inmates.
- 18 -
In the event that reliance is to be placed upon the
wording of Standing Orders, common sense would dictate that each
staff member must be provided with written copies of all Standing
Orders and revisions
to those Orders. The past practice at the
Toronto Jail of posting or reading Standing Orders is an in-
adequate method of the dissemination of those Orders.
One aspect of this grievance that merits comment is the
adequacy of information given to Correctional Officers assigned to
Hospital duty.
As indicated previously, the Grievor was told
only the name of the inmate/patient and the location of the Hospital.
That paucity of information was grossly inadequate in the circum-
stances. Security
will always be a problem when an inmate is
admitted to a community Hospital in facilities shared with regular
patients. Recognizing that fact, for a Correctional Officer to
be effective in the discharge of his duties, that Officer must be
provided with all information deemed relevant by the Superintendent,
concerning a hospitalized inmate. In the instant grievance, the
evidence is clear that the Grievor was unaware of the essential
fact that inmate
H. had been sentenced to a 15 year term for the
offence of break and enter. At the time of the escape, he was
awaiting transfer to the appropriate institution.
The escape of an inmate is always a serious matter which
sets in motion a series of potential consequences. The cost factor
in the apprehension
of an inmate who has escaped, the possibility
of criminal activity while that inmate is at large, and the future
- 19 -
relationship between the institution and a community Hospital,
are but a few of those consequences.
In our view, it is commendable that Superintendent
DeGrandis did not wish to be constrained by the* disciplinary responses
of his predecessors for similar offences. However, it is somewhat
unrealistic to totally ignore those past responses. To do so
inevitably leads to the charge of harsh and arbitrary action and
inconsistency in disciplinary approach. Several examples of past
disciplinary responses, and lack of discipline for similar violations
of Standing Orders at the Toronto Jail were presented in evidence.
No evidence was presented of a dismissal of a Correctional Officer
as a result of the escape of an inmate.
The responsibility for the administration of discipline
falls within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of any institution,
subject to arbitral review. Clearly, each case must be determined
on its own particular set of facts. In our opinion the penalty of
discharge imposed upon the Grievor was unduly harsh. Accordingly,
we exercise
our authority by virtue of Section 19(e) of the Crown
Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
The
Board considered the following Awards in its
deliberations as to the appropriate penalty - Ibbitson, (Public
Service Staff Relations Board June 9, 1981); Johnston, 14/83
(Verity); Hopcraft, 4/75 (Beatty); - Foy, 99/79 (Swinton); and
McQueen, 430/80 (Delisle). Having regard to these cases and to
- 20 -
the rationale of the Re United Steelworkers of America case
cited above, the
Grievor's departure from the Standing Orders,
but also having regard to the employer's indirect and possibly
incomplete communication of these Standing Orders as well as its
failure to provide the Grievor with adequate information about
the inmate, the Board is of the opinion that the Grievor must bear
some financial penalty.
Following the final day of Hearing on May 30, 1983,
the Board reinstated the Grievor to his position as a Correctional
Officer 2 at the Toronto Jail without loss of seniority. In lieu
of discharge, the Board shall substitute a penalty of a three month
suspension without pay upon the Grievor. The Grievor shall be
compensated for loss
of wages and benefits at his regular salary
(no overtime entitlement) subsequent to the three month suspension
to and including the date of his reinstatement, minus any U.I.C.
benefits received by the Grievor in the interim. We shall retain
jurisdiction in the event the Parties are unable to determine the
appropriate compensation.
- 21 -
DATED at Brantford, Ontario this 23rd day of June, 1983.
R.L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman
-
S. Kaufman memb e r
A.M. McCuaig Member
4: 1500
7: 3000
7: 3610
7 : 4000
7: 4300
7 : 4400