Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0590.Loney.84-06-27IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before Between: THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD OPSEU (Marlene Loney) Griever - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship and Culture) 'Employer Before: J.W. Samuels P. Craven B. Lanigan For the Grievor: N. Luczay Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: J.G. Diemer Personnel Advisor Personnel Branch Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Hearing: April 25, 1984 Vice Chairman Member Member . . :. -2- Ms. Loney is an archivist'assistant, and.since 1973, she has worked in the archives of Ontario. She has been employed by the Government of Ontario since 1966. She grieves a letter of reprimand placed in her file on August 15, 1983. This was the first disciplinary action on her record since she commenced work as a civil servant. The letter of August 15 (exhibit 21 is signed by Mr. W. Ormsby, Archivist of Ontario. It refers to the grievor's alleged unauthorized absence on the afternoon of August 3. 1983, to her alleged misuse of the telephone, and to her alleged "insolent behaviour in my office on August 10th." In the first paragraph, Mr. Ormsby referred to a "written complaint" from the grievor's acting supervisor, Mr. W. Cooper. That memorandum was attached to the letter of. reprimand, and thus formed part of it and the grievor's record. It was before this' Board as exhibit 5. At the second stage of the grievance procedure, the Ministry decided to withdraw the letter of reprimand and to substitute another note in her record. The grievor received a letter from Mr. J.M. Gage, Director of the Personnel Branch, dated September 20, 1983: On September 14, 1983 I chaired a second stage grievance meeting held in my office to discuss your grievance which stated "Improper letter with attachment dated August.15, 1983 given to me." By way of remedy you sought removal of this letter from your personnel file. Having carefully considered the concerns raised by yourself and. your staff representative Jim.Best, 1 have allowed your grievance in part and directed that the letter and attach- ments in question be removed from your personnel file. > I am of the opinion, however, that your conduct during the August 10, 1983 meeting with Mr. W. Ormsby and Mr. W. Cooper 1 .’ -3- was unacceptable and warrants ccnnnent. I have directed that a new memorandum, (copy attached) referring only to the incident of August 10. 1983 be substituted in place of the aggrieved correspondence. I trust that the'matter will flow be resolved. The new note in the griever's file, again signed by Mr. Ormsby, reads as follows: On August 10, 1983, I asked you to attend a meeting with Mr. Cooper and myself to discuss your unauthorized leave- of-absence on the afternoon of August 3, as well as your excessive use of the ~telephone for personal conversations. During the course of the discussion, you stood up suddenly and said, "I am not going to take any more of this crap" and,walked out of my office. I consider this behaviour to be unacceptable and must advise you that further outbursts of this nature will restilt in disciplinary action. But the grievor did notegree with this resolutionof her grievance. At our hearing, the Ministry argued that there was no longer a proper grievance before us because the offending letter of reprimand had been removed from'the grievorls file and the new note was not disciplinary. In our view, the original grievance is still alive. The only satisfactory answer to that grievance is simple removal of the offending letter. Substituting some new document, without the griever's consent, is not a'satisfactory answer. Once the grievance procedure is commenced, there is no final conclusion until the parties agree to a settlement, or the matter is decided by a board of arbitration (see, for Y example, Re Misawa Homes Ltd. and Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanicals and Allied Workers (7974), 5 L.A.C. (2d) 113 (Penner)). We heard evidence concerning the events giving rise to the grievance, In our view, there was no "unauthorized" absence on August 3. It was common . ,. -4- practice at that time for employees to receive ex post facto authorization from their supervisor, when they had a doctor's appointment and were unable to find their supervisor before leaving for the appointment. As well, there was no evidence introduced concerning incidents involving Mr. Cooper or any other .employees. There was no proof of the griever's excessive use of the telephone. We do find that, at the meeting held in Mr. Ormsbyls office on August 10 to discuss Mr; Cooper's.memorandum (attached to the letter of reprimand of August 15, and quoted above), the grievor stood up suddenly and said~ "I am not going to take any more of this crap” and walked out, leaving Messrs. Ormsby and Cooper. While t’here is some reason to believe that the grievor.had good cause to feel she was being unfairly accused of a number of activities, we would say that she should not have used such language, and her behaviour was unacceptable. We order that both the letter of reprimand of AugustiS. i983, with its attachment, and the substituted note of September 20, be removed from the griever’s personnei'file. and that this award remain instead in the file. Done at London, Ontario, this 27th day of June, 1984. .W. Sam, Vice Chairman P. Craven, Member 1, Grievance Form 2. Letter of Reprimand 3. Letter of September 20, 1983 4. Letter of November 8, 1983 5. Memorandum of August 4, 1983 .6. Letter of September 26, 1983 -5- EXHIBITS ’ . P