The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-0074.Hart.85-03-2674184 IN THE MATTER OF.AN ARBITR,ATION.- ;: ~ :, ,;, ,p- f '.. Under -. :.. :L : ,:: THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT ..:.. Refore i; ', THE GRI'EVAN.CE SETTL,EMENT BOARD. ,,' .,. ,; . ..I -:., Between: CUPE (Ronald Hart) . _,'., ,,I., 5 ., : Gr;evor ', . 3 . . ,* ,*- I ,'. ,,.. . - and - ” .‘! 9 ,.- The Crown in Right-of Onta rio (Ministry of Municipal Aff a i-rs and'.Hbus,ing) ~ .: .I '- e-c L .Employer * I ,. , : : ._ Before: ' R.'L. Verity;, Q.C. .~Vice .Chai'nman 'R'. Russell. - Member .i.-. , A.,~G. Stapleton Membe.r _ (. . , For the Grievo'r:~' T: Edwa'rds I.- National Representative..,, : Canadian Union of Public Employees .~ .,r Local 767 I s. -: r .' I _' ;: ,:I .' .I For the Empldy'er:. “;,,;se{arasuk, '.' .,A, ,. -. Central Ontario Industrial .' RelationssInstitute: Hearings: February 14.,':1985 February 15, 1~985 _’ - 2 - DECISION In a Grievance dated January 9, 1984, Ronald Hart alleged that he was dismissed without just cause. The settle- ment requested was reinstatement with full compensation for lost wages and benefits. At the time of discharge, the grievor was employed with the Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority as a Building Custodian, On January 3, 1984, Housing Authority Manager R. R. Nixon terminated the grievor's employment by sending the following reglstered letter (Exhibit 2): "You have failed to comply with the direc- tives contained in Mr. 0:MacIver’s letter of November 28, 1983 and Mr. L. Berg’s letter of December 14. 1983. You also re- ceived a last and final warning regarding your extended and.unauthorized absences in Mr. C. Gonthier's letter of July 7, 1982. The management of this Authority has ex- tended to you, without success, every op- portunity to substantiate your current two (2) months absence. You are hereby notified that your services with the Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Author- itv are terminated effective Tuesday, Jaiuary 3, 1984 for the follow i 1. Your unauthorized leave-of since December 3, 1983; 2. Failure to supply the requ i certificates." ng reasons: absence red medical -3-. The letter of July 7,:,1982,r,eferredqto @.&he above., ,, termination letter. bears repetition: .I s _:: .; -ji ,:; I. ',W ,., -* +; 4 -,; ,, "LAST AND FINAL WARNING .- ‘> ‘; :,t*:: , : )” _I ; .+, ~,,<., On December 22,.I980, you Lere place'do'n ' .,, + ', j, the. Ontario ~Government's A,l.coh.ol~ism ; Absentee Programme. _ .,” , I ., b:' On August -2'5,‘ i981, yoi! had a rel'apse'~'and :,:: $.' had to undergo further treatment. Attth,at time,, yo,u were .warne.d i,n :a le-tte,r to you dated September 8, 1981, that the a'bsenteeism created by thi,s illness was., -,-. ., _i preventing you from reporting to work on a regular .and continui'ng.bas;i:s, .an,d.further *: ,. " causing a serious disruption to our service'~ levels. You were also warned in that letter, that failure:to,,i,mpro.ve attendance.." and further job ,performance may,resul~t,in,.:.; the ultimate termination..of..your ,emp.loy- :: merit.. You have.& had a,second riiapse, -Jine”l5. - 29, 1982.~ t ,I’ p.. :, .~. ‘~ ,x Although the Hami$tqn+Wentworth ! - Housing-. .I, Authority was, and. sti!l..is,, prepared to make fu,rther r,easonable efforts to,support -: your rehabilitation; the- ultimate respon-.; sibility for success with the treatment is yours-. 't: ' I -et. : '.I, I *t i. ~ r ., Further., this'Tcor'Fes:pondince is ~intended to,. represent 'theelast- and finalL warning,..and to ensure that*you.cl.early- understand,.that : any further incidence's ,of, th-is nature.,will. result in the termination of your employ.: ment with the Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority," ~. -:I: -, In the January 3 termin!a,tipn. letter, reference was '. * made to two further letters. Mai.n't,enance Supervisqr 'Don .i '. ~ <; :F, I. MacIver's letter of November 28, 1983 stated that as"'the grievor had been off work from November 4, a doctor's letter - 4 - would be necessary prior to return to work. The letter also went on to state that in the event the grievor was unable to return to work by December 3;the doctor's letter substan- tiating the illness would require a statement as to anticipated return to regular employment. The evidence established that the letter did not come to the grievor's attention. The second letter referred to in the termination letter of January 3 was dated December 14, 1983. and was hand delivered to the grievor's home. ~That letter read as follows: "It has been four (4) weeks since you last contacted your supervisor, Mr. MacIver;' regardinq your lengthy absence. During this period of time, the Authority has attempted unsuccessfully, on separate occasions, to contact you at home (518 Britannia Avenue), at your previously known place of part-time employment, through fellow employees and stewards, and the Employee Health Service Branch of the Ministry of 6overnment Services. In addition, you have not complied with the requests for information as set out in Mr. Maclver's letter of November 28, 1983 (copy attached). As a result of.your non-compliance, you are in violation of article 19.01 (c) and (d) of the Collective Agreement. _ Therefore, with effect from Saturday, December 3, 1983. your absence has been treated as an unauthorized leave without pay. Further, you do not contact Mr. MacIver or Mr. you are hereby notified that if Oyment in person on or before Thursday, December 22, 1983 between 9 a.m. and 4 - 5 - -p.m. giving a full and satisfactory explan- ation for you'r'absence, including,the necessary doctor's certificate, your em- ployment with the.Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority will be terminated on. Thursday, Oecember.22; 1983." . ’ The grievor had no knowledge of the contents of the ,, .p 2 _ I .~ December 14 letter u,ntil he met with representatives of the . Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority on December 16, 1983. . .; : ~. _, _ Lo Clearly, ,the. termination letter made no refe,renc~e 'RI. .: :a whatsoever to the grievor's real problem, namely chronic alco- :. :'; holism. .However, on January 3, 1984, the employer had no know- ledge as to the reasons for the grievor's absence from wor'k for some two months. At the hearing, the parties,agreed that the ,~ I . grounds for termination would be expanded to include "unable 'to attend work asa result of acute alcoholism". ' ’ ‘_ .s The employer's case proceeded by.wdy of an agreed statement,of facts which were amply supported by the presenta- tion .of exhibits. The follow i ng facts were agreed upon by the part i es. : .~ ,‘:) 3 ,i The grievor was hired by the Housing Authority as a Groundsman/Labourer on October 4, 1976. In November, 1981; he was promoted to the classification of Building Custodian. - 6 - The grievor was absent from wo,rk from Januarv 21, to February 8, 1980. Shortly thereafter, the grievor admitted; for the first time to management representatives, that he had a severe alcohol problem. Following that admission, the grievor's physician, Or. J. A. Opie filed a medical certificate which diagnosed the problem as alcoholism. The grievor was again absent from work between July 21, 1980 to July 28 as a result of alcohol abuse. Similarly, the problem reoccurred in December of that year with the result that the grievor was absent from December 3, 1980 to December 15. On December 22, 1980. the grievor was placed on the Ontario Government's Alcoholism Absentee Pro9ram. He was then advised by letter that failure to co-operate might result in termination of employment. He was subsequently referred for a mandatory medical at Employee Health Services in Toronto and was seen by Government physician Dr. T. Rewa. Subsequent to the mandatory medical examination, the grievor attended a 4-l/2 week in-patient treatment at Chedoke Hospital in Hamilton fork treatment of alcoholism. The treatment commenced January 28, 1981 and the grievor subsequently returned to work on February 27. On August 25, 1981. the grievor suffered a relapse - 7 - ,,) ! and was absent from,wdrk until"SeRtember 1: In 'a le'ttrr dated ': September 4; the g~ie~or's'absenct~~~as treated as 'an .,',.- unauthorized leave without-pay. '.In addition, the grievor was' ' advised that failure to imorove"job'performance to'sa" ^ ; satisfactory 1evel'iight"result in termination. '. " .: $~ . . . ',' : : '_ The grievor had a furthe'r'r'e'la'R,se'related to alcohol abuse and was absent from work from June 15, 1982to June 29. In a letter dated July 7,'1982'; .th~e Housing Authority . issued a "'Last and Fiha'l 'Warning",‘set but above. 1' .' , i ,, The employer prorn~p~lL,~eactiv~a~ed the~treatient pro;': gram.' After the grievor had been seen' by'G,overnment physician Dr. Rewa, he was referred in 'SeRtembe'r; 1982.to a refresher - treatment program as an out-patient at Chedoke Hospital in Hamilton‘, ' The evidence established that the refresher 'progr'amm was helpful and in January of 1983, the grievor's Supervisor , reported that his job Rerfore?ance had improved. % unt ‘I .’ No further work related.p,roblems were encountered. I ,A. .’ il the grievor failed to report for work-'on Npvember 4, 1983. From that date until approximately November 11, the grievor reported to the Employer on a daily basis, and adv i that he ias suffering from the effects of a 'severe cold. sed - 8 - However, from November 11 until December 15, the grievor failed to contact the Employer to justify his absence. That absence caused the Housing Authority to write to the grievor as referred to previously on November 28, and again on December 14. Finally, on December 15, the grievor contacted his supervisor by telephone and as a result an interview was arranged for the following day. On December 16, 1983. the grievor met with Housing Authority representatives. He was given a copy of the December 14 letter and acknowledged. after having read the letter, that he understood the contents.. He advised management of his appointment with Dr. Opie on December 19 and that he would attempt to get a medical letter as r,equired by December 22. No medical certificate was presented on or before December 22. Management agreed with Union Steward Ina Little to extend the deadline until December 29.. As of January 3, 1984,,no doctor's letter had been received and no further contact had been made with the grievor. Finally, two,days after the dismissal,.the employer received a note from Dr. Opie, dated January 3, 1984. which contained the following information: "Dx - chronic depression Acute/chronic alcohol abuse. . I - 9 - Patient seen on this date & is cooperating with treatment. Tentative return to work @ 2 - 3 weeks." In his testimony, ,the grievor recited a tr.agic his- tory of alcohol, abuse which h,e acknowl,edged,had been a~*prob~l,e,m for -15 to.20 years. The .grievor'smarriage of some 25,years broke down during the third week of November, 1983 and as a result he left the.matsimonial home.,,- The grievor and his wife are still separated. ’ ,. f,;<iThe grievor described~himse1fas.a ".binge,,drinker land not a daily drinker".. Apparently these binges would la.st.for periods-of'four to,five days. He testified that he became~. acutely depressed after the separation and promptly gave up :a11 hope of continued employment. His tesfim0n.y wasto the effect that he~began drinking heavily around the beginning of December; 1983. :, i ~. < -The grievor candiid'ly admitted that the low,point in his battle with alcoholism occurred in the summer of 1984 when his body,weight had ,dropped to 126 pounds.~ He so,ught,medical attentionfrom his family ,physician, and wao.sub,sequently admitted as an in-patient at Chedoke-McMaster Centre in October 1984 on a voluntary basis. He testified that he finally recognized the fact that he must change his lifestyle. In his own words, "it was all or nothing". .~ The grievor te stress generally without resulted from his job, h tified that he was unable to cope with resort to alcohol, and that stress s marriage and his extracurricular The grievor's extensive involvement in extracurricular activities have now been reduced to a manageable level. At the present time he assists with the local scouting movement and is in the process of completing a correspondence course in horticul ture through the University of Guelph. The grievor is actively invo lved in a self-maintenance program which emphasizes nutrition, exercise and sleep to assist in behavioral modification. The grievor testified that since the October treatment at Chedoke-McMaster. he has regained his sense of self-worth, and that for the first time in years he is starting to enjoy life. Although he still activities. In the grievor's own words, "I have never learned the sk.ills of being able to cope,with stressful situations". - lo- acknowledged problems, he testified that his p,ercebtion and attitude have changed. The grievor stated that he now accepted the fact that he could not tolerate alcohol in any,,form. and that he had consumed no alcoholic beverage since September of 1984. Khem Chopra, Director of the Chedoke-McMaster Hospital's Alcoholism Treatment and Education Centre testified ” - ll- on behalf of the grievor. We shall review Mi.'Chopra's testi- mony at a late'r point." ,,'.. ~. The grievor's violat i 19 of the Co) lective Agreement , :, on of the~provisions of Articl'e-: were cited by the employer in support 'of. dis~charge. Two‘paragraphs‘of.Article- 19 are : ‘/ .i. "19..01 (c) Sickness must,.be substant.iated by -a doctor's'cert'ificate if the Employer '2 so requires and, in any event, jf the ab- sence is of more than' three (3) consecutive working days in dur.ation. I*n all cases,of sickness th'e Employee's Supervisor shal~l be notxified with,in -two (2) hours f.rom com- menceme~nt of r~egular duties on the fi'rst day of, ab.sence,. Where the latter is not possible du'e to 'w'ork schedul.ing steps must be taken by the empl~oyee to notify a desig- nated alternate, or where he/she is not available, the office of the Housing Mana- ger within two (2) hours from the commence- -ment of regular duties." '. - - , “19.01 (d) Notwithstanding Article . . ~, lg.Ol[c), an empl'oyee 'absent for 'more 'than twenty (20) cons,ecutive wo,rking days shall furnish immediately .following such %wenty (20) working days, a certificate from his personal physician'givin'g the p'robable 'date on which the employee wiil return to duty." : ’ ~,..’ On behalf.of the emplo~yer, Mr. Tarasuk argued that ., management had .acted reasonably in djschargjng.the grievor.pn - I ,the combined grounds of absence without leave and chronic alcoholism. He contended ~that post-disciplinary evidence has I.. no mitigating significance, and in. any.event, that in the -’ 12- absence of any medical prognosis, the discharge must be upheld. Mr. Tarasuk contended that the grievor must face realty and that reinstatement would not assist him in that regard. Mr. Edwards urged the Board to exercise its authority under Section 19(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargain- ing Act by finding that discharge was an excessive penalty. He contended that reinstatement of the grievor was appropriate in light of the successful attempts at rehabilitation and the prognosis of Dr. Opie and Mr. Chopra. Mr. Edwards'argued that rehabilitation would likely succeed in light of the grievor's acceptance that abstinence was the only soluti.on to his problem. Having considered all of the evidence carefully, the Board is satisfied that the employer has taken every reasonable step in attempting to rehabilitate the grievor, and in so doing has dealt with the problem in a most compassionate manner. The Board is also satisfied that the employer had just cause to discharge the grievor on January 3, 1984. As of that date, the grievor had absented himself from work for a period of almost violation of Art Agreement. Ue f two icle ind t months. Clearly, the grievor was in 19.01(c) and (d) of the Collective hat the grievor was familiar with the . . - 13- terms .of the Collective Agreement by virtue of his ,experience for five years as a Union Steward and two year.s ;as Chief: Steward. :~ ', r 1, Board Crown of a 1 However, the'more difficult issue is whether the sliould exeicise"its discretion under-section 19(3) of the Employees Collective Bargaining Act in the,sub,stitution;. esser penalty. . .< '_I, <,* ,. i :: Although unknown to the employer- at th.e.time, the ., ,, .a. grievor was in an unfits c~ondition to resume- hi,s.duti:.es on - January 3, 1984 as a"resui,t of'the.continuing batt.Je'$ith alcoholism. Dr. Opie's medical note received by the Housing Authority on January 5 again confirms the diagnosis of acute alcoholism;~ . : n Generally, in grievance arbitrations the issue for determination is whether disciplinary actions were proper at (. the time they occurred, and events subsequent to that action are irrelevant. .However, in,certain cases such as acute alto-. . i , holjsm, i:t, i.s by no means uncommon for Boards of Arbitration to . : .+ consider related subsequent events to determine the appropri-' -j ,' -, .ateness of the penalty imposed. See Re Labatt's Ontario _ Breweries Ltd. and National Brewery Workers' Union, Lical 1 (2d) 66 (Brunner); Re Molson's Brewery (1978), 20 L.A.C. (Ontario) Ltd. and Canadian Union of U~nited Brewery, Flour, - 14- Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers, Local 304 (1979). 23 L.A.C. (2d) 392 (Adell); and the Grievance Settlement Board Award of Vice-Chairman Swan in OLBEU (Mr. A. Saunders) and the LiquorControl Board of Ontario, 252/82. In the Labatt's Breweries case, Arbitrator Brunner stated at page 71: "The authorities appear to support the pro- position that in determining whether a board of arbitration should exercise its jurisdiction under s. 37(8) of the Labour Relations Act [now Section 44(g)] it can consider matters that have arisen subsequent to the date of discharge and in particular a grievor's efforts toward rehabilitation." The learned Arbitrator reviewed relevant Canadian and American arbitral authority in support of the above proposi- tion. In the instant arbitration, the grievor testified at length in connection with his attempt at rehabilitation. He confirmed that he consumed alcoholic beverages in June 1984 and had two beers in September of that year. By July of 1984 his body weight was down to 126 pounds which represented a weight loss of some 22 pounds. In October 1984, he admitted himself to the Chedoke-McMaster Alcoholism Clinic for a period of some five months as an in-patient. The Board is sat isf~ieb that the griever;, at -long..:-. last, has corn''' to grips 'wi th'his problem and possesses'the ..:' motilation~~foi su'ccessful rehabilitation. 'There is no, doubt -that'he is making a' genuine, effort-'at rehabilitation to achieve a fundame'ntal change in 'l'ifest'y~l'e...' It is notinfreq,uent;that: real motivation surfaces only3nthe face of adversity. Here, the grievoi:separated from his wife and lost his:job within the same time frame. The Board was-impressed by the&honesty and candor of the'grievor's testimony. Clearly, he is'.,intellig,ent and highly articulate. At the time of discharge, he had ~. - 15- accumul ated in excess of 8 years service,with the Housi,ng Authori, The.Alcoholism Centre's reco‘rds dated Novembe,r.ll.; ,984 demonstrate a moder.ate degree- of ~success in dealing .with his marriage breakdown, stress control and self-image..- ,.' ' At the hearing 'there 5 was n.o 'medicalevidence pre- sented which indicated'an addiction 'prognosis. Dr. Opie's . . letter of February 5', 1985 fall prognos~is. Dr. Opie's opinion work on a regular basis" has a s far short of'a'medical that-"he is able toereturn. to somewhat hollow ring, and is repetitive of previous notes forwarded to the employer; However, a prognosis tias presented by-Khem Chopra, the Director of the Alcoholism Clinic at Chedoke-McMaster - - 16- Hospitals. Mr. Chopra is a professional in the sense that he established the Alcoholism Centre at Chedoke Hospital some nine years ago, and has accumulated approximately 11 years experi- ence in the treatment of alcoholism. He holds a Masters Degree in social work, and a Masters Degree,in science. Although no serious attempt was made by the Union to establish Mr. Chopra's qualifications as an expert witness (with the exception of a general statement to that effect), the Board is satisfied that the Director's opinions merit careful scrutiny, based on his experience. Mr. Chopra testified that prior to October 1984..the grievor demonstrated a marked reluctance to counteract his alcoholism. The grievor was described by Mr. Chopra as a perfectionist who experienced difficulty in coping with failure. It was the Director's testimony that the recovery rate by participants at the Chedoke-McMaster Centre is 66% to 75% where pa~tients retain their jobs. Conversely, it was his tesitmony that there was a 0% recovery rate when a patient has lost his job. In summary, it was Mr. Chopra's evidence that a patient's job retention is an essential ingredient in the recovery process. He also stated that a change of job produces additional.and unwanted stress factors. - 17- The Board is. satisfied that, although the Director has never been involved,ias ,the! grie.vor's assigned.;therapist, .he is familiar -with the grievor's circumstances.based ,on knowledge' of the case..record; 'direct contact-with the grievor, and assessments from meetings with,clinic st.aff.personnel. . ,~ I 'J . ,Y! i, The grievoi-was.described, by the'Director as a perfectionist who experienced great diffidulty coping with the stress factors in life. Mr. Chopia.testified that the 'gri,evor's 'job was one of.;the principal causes of stress and that in;the past the'grievor coped with..str.ess by the .1 'consumption .o.f:.a,lcholic beverag~es. One of theT.prog,r,am's goals is to.assist the grievor in coping with stress, free~fiom alcohol consumption. The Director testified that in his opinion,'the~grie.vor*was. on the r'oad to recovery and "had ~a good chance of recovery because ,h‘is motivation was Avery high". He also stated.t~hat "the occasional.. r-elapse is note uncommon". ; .~ i ." , Alcoholism has long been 'reco:gnize~d in both medical .~and legal literature‘ as an,.il-lness..~ However, alcoholism is an ., illness . . in many a lco ho1 i whe,re there 'is- anelement.of fauxlt - anillness which cases' is'co~ntrollab,le; ' Absenteeism caused by sm is one of. the.most di'fficult problems to confront 'an employer. Quite simply, -there are no easy answqrs in the 'tecovery process, and the medical profession has~.yet to discover instant cures. The Board is satisfied that the grievor now recognizes and is currently dealing .with the problems that induced the illness. The evidence establishes that the grievor is participating in ,a rigorous program.of self-discipline in his personal lifestyle, which has as its cornerstone, ion factor to abstinence. In short, he possesses the mot succeed, albeit somewhat after the fact. ivat As indicated previously, the Board has determined that the grievor was discharged for just cause inJanuary of 1984. The employer has indeed met the tests set out by Vice- Chairman Joliffe in Devlin and the Ontario Housing Corporation, G.S.B. 331/8D. However, in our opinion, the post-disciplinary cir- cumstances are sufficiently compelling and our jurisdiction under Section 19(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargain- ing Act is sufficiently broad to set aside the penalty of dis- charge and substitute such other penalty as seems "just and reasonable in all the circumstances". In cases of alcohol addiction, the important factor 'is the prognosis for the future usefulness of the employee. Here, the grievor has benefited as a result of the extended period between discharge and the arbitration hearing, which has afforded him the opportunity to to demonstrate rehabilitation. As Vice-Chairman Swan stated in Saunders and L.C.B.O. (Supra) at page 7: ,- 19- I, . . . the conventional wisdom is that it is only when faced with the choice between rehabilitation and a hopeless future that most alcoholics find the strength to recover: see Re British Columbia Telephone Company and Telecommunication Workers': I<'~1 Union (Ig78), 19 L.A.C. (2d) 98 (Gall)." In our opinion, the gr.ievor merits one final .' a . : ::. s. opportunity to face reality, and one final attempt to organize his priorities. Given the present motivation factor there is .- ~? ,- . . -t, no reason that the grievor'cannot become a useful employee and :x j ,. ,.i . q,,,y,roductive member of society. .' :~ . ,i I: .' 1. ,' In the circumstances, reinstatement to employment .. 6 . . :' 1' >' with the Housing Authority is an appropriate consideration, but ..I . .i. s, ., _ not to the position of Building Custodian. The job of a custo- ,,I T. dian .in a high rise housing unit will inevitably produce daily stressful situations, .1 and we are not satisfied that the grievor ,._ is sufficiently rehabilitated to assume~that role. ew However, the grievor's affin i i'. loyment and his interest in horticu 1, : ty for outdoor ture tends to suggest that it would be prudent, at least initially, to reinstate the grievor to the classification of Groundsman/Labourer. His - initial employment with the Housing Authority was that of a .- Groundsman. The grievor must have been relatively successful in that pos~ition because, as the evidence indicates, he was : promoted in November of 1981 to the position of Building - 20- Custodian. In the result, we make the following Order: 1. The grievor shall be reinstated as of the date of this Decision to employment with the Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Author: ity without loss of seniority, but without compensation for lost wages and benefits resulting from his discharge. The lapse of time from the discharge to the date of issuance of this Decision shall be consid- ered a period of suspension. 2. The grievor shall not be reinstated to the position of Building Custodian, but shall be employed as a Groundsman/Labourer. 3. The reinstatement to employment shall be conditional for a period of two years during which time the grievor shall abstain from the use of any alcoholic beverage. 4. During the period of conditional rein- statement, the grievor shall continue I ‘, , .‘, . ‘~ ‘. - 21- treatment as- an'out-patient at Chedoke- McMaster Alcoholism Treatment and Educa tion Centre, or any,si'milar al:coholism treatment centre in the event of a job relocation, and shall'participate,i n all treatment 1: 'procedures recommended by.the.centre.. '!., '., i -5.' The employer.shalT demonstrate, .; continuing~ interesteinthe griever's,.:.,: progress with the Chedoke-McMaster Alcoho'lism Treatment and.Education Centre and the'employer. shall participate ,.i.n any 'procedures deemed .~appropr,iat'e:by the '4 i Centre., 6. Nothing in this Decision shall 'affect the employer's right to discharge or other- _- wise discipline the grievor for just cause, either.during or after the two year period specified above. 7. In the.event that the grievor refuses to accept the terms of this conditional re- instatement within 2 weeks of the issuance of this decision, his dismissal will be confirmed and it wi.11 be deemed that his I i. ..> - 22- grievance is dismissed. The terms outlined above for the grievor's condition- al reinstatement are both onerous and stringent. In the event that the grievor fails to abide by th,e conditions of reinstate- ment, it is unlikely that a future Arbitration Panel would again reinstate the grievor . The continuity of the grievor's future employment with the Employer will depend upon his courage, motivation and determination. The Board wishes.to express its appreciation to both Mr. Tarasuk and Mr. Edwards for their thoughtful presentations in a most difficult case. A.D., DA TED at Brantford, Ontario, this 26thday of March, ~1985. R. L. Verity, Q.C. - Vice-Chairman -AL2 /- R. BusseT: - Member , : .<I :,,y; -).., *, -. _.x> ---- A. G. Stapleton ;' rlrmber ,