Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0129.Colquhoun.85-07-05Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BetWtXll: Employer Before: E.B. Jolliffe, Q.C. SD. Kaufman B.V. Lanigan Vice-Chairman Member Member ( For the Griever: For the Employer: Hearing: OPSEU (Gerald Colquhoun) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Revenue) Grievor M. Rotman, Counsel, Barrister and Solicitor D. Montgomery, Local President, OPSEU V. Cooper, Staff Representative, OPSEU M. Simpson,-Counsel, Legal Services Branch (on August 15,16,17) G.W. Sholtack, Counsel, Legal Services Branch (on October 11,12) D. Kirk, Supervisor, Personnel Services August 15,16,17, 1984 October -11,12, 1984 “. I - 2 - The grievance of Mr. Gerald Colquhoun complainS against his suspension for'20 working .days. He asks that the suspension be rescinded, that "all monies, benefits and of damages Abe paid" and that all documentation referring to the matter be removed from his file. The grievor held,the position.of a P.A.3 employed ~with the assessment b~ranch of the Ministry of Revenue at Windsor. Another assessor working out of the same office was Ms. Annette Beaudoin, who repeatedly complained of "personal harassment" by the grievor. The reason for discipline was stated in a letter dated October 31, 19S3, addressed to Mr. Colquhoun by Mr. E.V. Moxley, the Assessment Commissioners in charge at Windsor. Headed "Re: Personal Harassment Complaint," the letter (Exh~ibit i 4bwas as follows: . This is further to our meeting Friday afternoon, Cctaber 28, 1983, Mr. Speroni present, regarding a personal'harassment complaint against you by Ms. Annette Beaudoin, October 24, 1983. After investigating the complaint, interviewing wurself, considering pur written submission and interviewing ten witnesses, it is my decision that you be suspended for a period of twenty (20) working days withoutpayorbenefits,commencing October 31; 1983, 8:30 A.M. I am al.50 requesting that the Director of Personnel Services Branch arrange a medical referral. . . - -3- Cn your return to work, pu will be assigned to the Valuation Manqer,of Area 2. I expect that this harassment behaviour will cease and that you will conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times. If your harassment of Ms. Reaudoin continues upon your return to work., the next step will be dismissal., ‘, At the conclusion of @r suspension period, report directly to me. ~. . : Mr. R.J. Speroni was a Valuation Manager and the immediate supervisor of both the grievor and the complainant. On March 24, 1983, approximate,ly seven months prior to the suspension, Mr. Speroni had written to the grievor in Exhibit 8 as follows: Gn February 17, 1983, a complaint was reCeived by myself frun Ms. A Bealdoin, to ,the effect that pu wre harassing her during and after work hours. On that day, I brought you into my office to discuss this matter. After a lengthy conversation, you agreed to stay away from her during and after office hours especially’ if the after hours contact affects the lxlLmal offi,ce work of Ms. Waldoin. On March 23, 1983, I received another complaint from MS. A. Reaudoin, stating that you left a note on her desk asking. to’meet her to straighten’out certain problems between the tvo of LOU. Main, I broqht..wu into my .office to discuss this matter. Wing our conversation yau admitted to calling her by telephone after you had agreed not to have any after hour contact with her. .Also during this conversation you suggested that you and ems. Peatioin st-ould meet, with me there as a mediator, so that this problem could be straightened .out. You stated at that’ time, that if this meeting didn’t come about, you would still contact her after tours against her .wishes, In speaking to Mr.’ Moxley concerning this matter, he agreed to the - 4 - meet& as long as MS: Peaudoin agreed. I spoke to Ms. Beaudoin and she hesitantly agreed. Previous to the meeting, pu gave me your word that if this meetin was to take place that you muld definitely stop any harassment of Ms. Bealdoin in the future. Before the meeting started, I had set someground rules for procedure and the main rule was that~ after bearing all the facts that you muld abide by my decisions concerning personal flow of office mrk. Pgain youagreed. , As the meeting progressed it~became evident that you were the sole instigator of the harassment complaint, a fact that you also stated during this meeting., As a result of. this meeting wfiich lasted 1 and l/2 hours, I have asked that' you refrain from any personal contact during and after working hours especially since this type of contact leads to a disruption of your workload.' ,Any contact between yourself and Ms. Beaudoin concerning your office duties should be channeled throqh myself or one of your P.A. IV'S. You will~be expected to act in a professional manner when sudden, unexpected exchange between. yourself and Ms. Eeaudoin is required in connection with your office duties. .You have been given a copy of the policy concerniq personal harassment from the Ontario Manual of ministration. Any comments you have concerning this letter should be addressed to me inwriting. The "Personal .Harassment Policy" referred to in Mr. Speroni's letter is an extracts (Exhibit 3) f.rom the Ontario ~'Manual of Administration. It begins with the fol .:_ statement: owing . It is the policy of the Government of Ontario that every employee in the Ontario Public Service can expect to be afforded a.work environment free of personal harassment. - 5 - There follows a lengthy quotation from the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981, referring to sexual and other forms of harassment and- the initiation of enforcement proceedings under the Code. The Gov:ernment's policy goes on to provide that the definition of "harassment" and its interpretation shall be as stated by the Code. The definition is: "Harassment" means engaging in a.course of vexations, comments or conduct that is known or oqht reasonably tom be known to be unwelccme. The interpretation given by a Guide to the Code is as follows: Harassment is a course of comment or conduct consisting of words or actions that disparage or cause humiliation to a person prohibited in relation to one of the prohibited grounds. The Government's policy also states that ",managers are responsible, upon becoming aware that harassment is occurring, .for dealing with it eventhough no formal com,plaint iS forthcoming." It points out: "The Human Righ-ts Code provides that a person who hasthe authority to prevent or discourage harassment may,be held responsible for failing to do ~~0." Succeeding parag;aphs.in the Government's policy set out the Responsibilities of the Investigating Officer (including -6- interviews on a donfidential basis with the complainant, the offender and others). Responsibilities of the Employee include notice of disapproval to the offender, keeping a record, and, if need be, filing a writtencomplaintas well as the appro- priate remedial action to be taken, including "sanctions"-based on "an understanding of the seriousness of the misconduct." It is further provided that "counselling shall be made available" and that the policy "does not infringe upon an employee's right of redress through the pKOCeduKsS established by the Human Rights legislation." IUhas already been made apparent by the letters quoted above that-both Mr. Speroni and MK. Moxley recognized their :,.. responsibilities under the ;p policy- and sought to take appiopriate action by way of counselling as well as investigation. The ,+grievor's contention * is that the penalty Imposed was not ..:... justified, having regard to all the known facts. 1 .". It should be emphasized that this case is not'one of "sexual harassment" ,in%,the usual sense oft that term. The complaint was one of "personal harassment," as defined in the Code, and that was the term used by Mr. Moxie? in imposing a 20- - day suspension. Nevertheless, according to the testimony of the complainant and several other witnesses, there were strong sexual ovdrtones in some of the remarks.complained oft, and such remarks were occasionally vuLgar and insulting In the extreme. -7- Twenty-one witnesses testified at hearings in this case, which consumed no less than five days. Apart from the complainant and the grievor, 11 witnesses.were called by the ;__ employer's counsel and eight by the griev'or's counsel. Not sur- prisingly, a number of inconsistencies, diffe.rences of opinion I and outright contradictions emerged from their testimony. Two real issues remain to be resolved: whether the evidence establishes that the grievor's words and behaviour constituted "personal harassment" as defined by the Government's stated policy --- and the HumanRights Code --: and secondly, if personal harassment has been proved, whether the 20-day suspension was any appropriate penalty fin the circumstances. ., The Board attaches much importance to two documents in evidence, both of which'are probably m'ore weighty than the testimony except that of. the complainant and, the grievor's explanations inanswer thereto. The first document is the grievor's written complaint (Exhibit 6) dated October -21 and rezeived by Mr. Moxley on Monday; October 24. Ms. Beaudoin wrote as follows: Dear Mr. Moxky. On February17th,1983, my valuationmanaGer Mr. RJ. Speroni received from me a harassment complaint against Mr. Colquhoun regarding unwelcomed contact duriq and after horkirg hours. Roth Mr. Colquhoun & myself were.instructed to refrain from any further contact, 6 and any such further occurances were to be brought to the attention of Mr. Speroni. Cn March 23rJ 1983, I. agained (sic) canplained to M. Speroniof a note placed on my desk from Mr. Colquhoun requesting a meeting to straighten out certain problems. I I had no intentions of meeting with Mr. Colquhoun. To avoid unwelcomed contact from Mr. Colquhoun after Wrking hours, I accepted the sound advice of Mr. Robert Speroni to attend a meeting with Mr. Speroni as acting mediator. Mr. Colquhoun and myself agreed to abide by Mr. Speroni's decision concerning contact between the two of us as it affects the normal work flow of this office. Mr. *roni requested that any contact between Mr. Col@-~un 6 myself .concerniq our office duties was to be channeled through Mr. Speronioroneof 'the PA IV's. Previous to this meeting and afterwards I have conducted myself in a professional manner. I was even prepared to act in a professional manner had tiny sudden unexpected charges between myself h Mr. Colquhoun been required in connection with our officeduties. (This situation has not presented itself to date.) It is my contention that a conscientious effort is required to solve any problem before formal action is taken. Eespite~these.efforts, I continue to be the target of Mr. Colquhoun's, obnoxious & insulting remarks. I realize that working in a mixed office such asours requires acertain amount of "thick-skin" as well as a sense of humor but where does one draw the line? It is one thing to make an "off-colour" joke but.,it becanes very ugly when the remarks are deemed as a$ersonal attack. - 9 - I am quite surethatnoother employee would have tolerated Mr. Colquhoun's actions for the duration that I have done so. In fact, had any male employee received such personal insults they uould have settled the matter in a much different fashion. Since I am not in a position to do the . same I have no other alternative than to lodge a formal harassment complaint, all other efforts having failed. I do this not only in my best interest&t for the overall concern of my PA IV's (Robert Kellett mainly).and my valuation manager Robert Speroni, who have both been a great support in this situation. It has reached the p&t &here other co-' workers are witnessing Mr. Colqubcun's behaviour 6 the situation isbecoming evenmore embarrassing not only to myself but also to my fellow colleagues. An example of this tookplaceonOct 19th, the evening of the Assessment Institute Meeting. I was admist (sic) a conversation with Gerry LaMarre 6 Sandras Dugas,when Mr. Colquhoun deliberately shoved me and began to chuckle "it was an accident". There is no questio,n that this was a deliberate action - the type I no loqer choose to disregard. It has been sqgested to me that I becane more "tough-skinned." Mr. Moxley, I am in a double bind - I want to keep peace in an office atmosphere and at the same time I want my piece of mind without being considered a "squealer". It is a true violation of my personal rights to be back& into a corner such as this. I acknowledge absolutely no blame for this harassment charge nor do I have any vindictive feelings or ill-wishes towards Mr. Colquhoun. I just want my personal rights respected enabling me to have piece of mind conducive to good job performance. Thank you for your appreciation in this matter. .Annette Peacdoin . . :. . . . can't i I in L.. Please see attached page. .(as follows:) I was advised to keep a record of Mr. Colquhoun's actions. Below is a sampliq of what has been transpiring cxrer the past year. Thurs. AMJ 11-83 - intimidating me in front of Ben Mcgride & George Boscher regardiq sexual activity in Europe. R-i. &g 12-83 Are you getting on this elevator you asshole, pu are I'll take the next one. Fri Aug 12-83 if Deliberately blocking my way when I'm headed towards the file area. R-i Aug 12-83 Specifically referring to me as a suckhole, cry baby ad squealer- "watch her go tell EC& now". He said this after the abme. Sept 22-83 Rafers to me as a hypocrite, assbnle - the perfect Christian. Ozt 17/83 - Someone made a comment that I had ablack shirt on and again Mr. Colquhoun replied at large A To make her lcok smaller. ., 03 19-83 - at the Institute meeting Gerry Colquhoun shoved me in front of Gerry IaMarre b Sardras was. Cct 20-83 " * . . . - shoving episode in front of Brenda~Petrol, John Preston, Gerry LaMarre & other strangers in the lobby. :, - 11 - On receiving Ms. Beaudoin's com.plaint, Mr. Moxley undertook an immediate investigation, interviewing certain ~witnesses as well as the griever, from' whom he requested a written. statement. Mr. Colquhoun's reply (Exhibit 10) dated October 27, was as follows: ,.~..t;.:, -.. I am writing this letter in response to the harassment canplaint made by Miss Reaudoin. : After the last meeting ;ith Rob Speroni concerning the situation between Miss Beaudoin ard I, we came to the conclusion that we were not to communicate on a personal or work related basis. (Bob Kellet& Ed Andersonwillconfirm thisas we were both told to confront either one of them regarding mrk. I kept my hard and did not talk to her, for any reason. However she did approachme on.two occasions. ,Regarding work which was in direct violation of our qreement (a witness can be provided). I haved (sic) talked m Miss Beaudoin in the presence of others, anTherself. She has also talked about myself in the presence of others. In both incidences (sic) we have werheard each others conversations. It is very difficult to avoid when working in the same office. " On occasion I have heard other employees make off colored remarks on Miss R&&oins character ard no harassment charge is being brought on them. Therefore I canonlyconclude thatbecauseof our previous relationship her paranoia and extreme sensitivity that I am beiw victimized unjustly (an example of her sensitivity woud (sic) be she has been seen crying on the telephone on several occasions when confronting an irritated taxpayer.) Recently I have been taken aside by fellow employee and friend, who told me that Miss i Bealdoin was spreading malicious gossip about me to other employees. This gossip was related to my character founded or unfounded. Since the justice system in Canada gives me the right to innocence until proven guilty, then I conclude that this is _ - 12 - nothing less then slander. This gossip is the result of accusations made by her, and also the reason I knew about the charges before I was called: to your office (Greg Vokes will witness my complaint). I avoid Miss Heaudoin in the office and outside~theoffice. Igo out of my way not to be in her presence. When I have to be in close quarters with her connected to my work I wait until she is finishedand.then'I go about my business. Miss Heaudoin however~ does not, as if she is baiting me. I confronted Miss Eeauzl&n in March of 83 with a written note tellid her I would like to meet ,with her and discuss our problem. She did not respond in a positive way however. She flatly refused to meet and.turned around apositve (-sic) approach by me to cane to a mutual decision intc a harassment charge.~ Therefore I can only concltie (sic) then frcm her actionthat she did rot want to promote harmony and releive (sic) tension in the office, between us. Through my personal relationshih with Miss Eeaudoinmylife has been threatened. This threat was not by her but by someone closely connected with her. Ibis threat makes it very difficult for me to associate with her in any shape or form. In conclusion I wxld like to say that I want nothing to do with Miss Heaudoin now or in the future on a personal basis. However when a work related situation arises where wa sbuld confir I will caxwnicate on a @25hess level only. I say this because I do not wish to upset the harmony of the office because of Miss Hsalr3oin and myself personal differences. "G. Colguhoun" Hell has no fury like aloveturned to hatred Nor heaven no rage like a wonans scorn (sic) "Cmqreve" -:: . . - 13 - The quotation from Congreve, although very inaccurate,* ; clearly expressed the grievor's opinion that he himself was the real victim of harassment. Rejected more than a year before, he had not yet recovered, failing to heed the sage advice given by the same William Congreve in "The Wayofthe World." Tha.tadvice was: .~ Say what you will, 'tis better to be left than never to havebeenloved. Similar quotations from other authors can be found, but none will serve to resolve the issues'in this case. In a general way, the griever's statement given to Mr. Moxley amounted to a denial of all the charges .set out with some particularity in Ms. Beaudoin's written complaint. Thus it unfortunately becomes necessary to assess their credibility-and also that of the other witnesses. Their testimony will be reviewed and'evaluated 'hereafter as briefly as possible. . . . . . . . . * The correct version is "Heav'n has no rage, like lcnre to hatred turn'd, kx Hell a fury, like a wonan scorn'd."~ (See the Oxford Dictionary of Cuotations at p. 155) 4 - The Board has prepared a detailed recital of the testimo.ny given by each and every one of 21 witnesses. Since they gave evidence over a period of five days, the recital runs to considerable length .c but it has been carefully reviewed and considered. The Boards hasalso weighed the merits of a suggestion by Ms. Simpson at the outset of the'hearings'that the anonymity of witnesses should be protected. For some of them, anonymity is not deserved. Nevertheless, in the interests of preserving or restoring a semblance of harmony in the Windsor office, the Board has decided that, with certain$.$x.ceptions, witnesses will not be identified and the substance of their testimony will not~be made public. The exceptions of course are four persons: the grievor, the complainant, their immediate supervisor, Mr. Robert Speroni, and the Assessment Commissioner in charge of the Wi'ndsor office, Mr. E.V. Moxley. Their statements and their letters have already . been quoted, as was necessary. The concluding remarks in the griever's testimony are significant. The grie,vor said the complain.ant had bothered him at work and he did not like being approached by her. He admitted , being -wrong in making "some comments" but "I have made abusive remarks to others~ and others to me --- it's the status quo in that office." He further said: "Yes, I am guilty --- partly." - 15 - In talking to Mr. Speroni, the grievor said, "I did express anger and felt like killing her... I did tell him how I felt... But when I got that letter from Speroni, I didn't care --- I just filed it." He added that he does not think he understood the extract from the Manual given him by Mr. Speroni. I The grievor finally conceded: "I have made errors. But now I'm sorry: I'm sorry that a lot of people over-reacted." He denied drinking at work --- but alcohol was *intertwined to other problems.! CONCLUSIONS The Ministry's counsel called 12 witnesses, including the complainant, Mr. Speroni and Mr. Moxley. In our view.their testimony established clearly that the complainant was, over a period of more than one year, the victim of~unprovoked insults and abuse in words, gestures and deeds by the grievor. We con- clude that such behaviour within the office constituted personal harassment as defined in the Human Rights Code and in the Government's 'Manual df Administration, and,, finally tha.t the Assessment Commissioner was fully justified in conducting an . . ~investigation and thereafter imposing a ZO-da'y suspension on the ~I zgrievor. - 16 - The grievor's,counsel called nine witnesses, including the grievor. Their testimony failed to rebut that of the other witnesses. Several had not noticed any incidents of harassment, which. proved nothing. Several said they were not aware of trouble until the suspension , which also. proves nothing. Most testified tha.t .foul language and erotic jokes are commonplace in the office, which may be true but such juvenile and boorish behaviour does not justify a course of insulting conduct directed specifically at the complainant. In short: the charges made by the complainant have been supported by the evidence; the explanations offered by the grievor,particularly that'he had been disappointed in love, completely fail to provide any rational defence for his behaviour. In argument it was submitted that the suspension was inappropriate and excessive in the circumstances. We cannot Agree. The grievor received two.explicit warnings to cease and desist from harassing the complainant. On the first.occasion he agreed ~to comp1.y. On the second occasion, only five weeks later, he was given a written warning, together with a copy of the extract from the .Manual of Administration clearly defining personal harassment and requiring remedial action on the part of management. N:evertheless, the grievdr's vexatious course, of conduct --- after a pause --- continued from- time to time. Having regard to the warnings received --- and’ ignored by the - 17 - grievor --- it becomes obvious that he did 'not respond to either counselling or discipline. Apart from the assurances he gave Mr. Speroni on February 17, 1983, and the qualified admission he made at the end of his testimony, there was no sign of contrition. There is even evidence of an insult some months after he was suspended. In these circumstances we cannot find that the penalty imposed on him was either inappropriatg or excessive. It'follows that~the grievance fails and must be dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 5th day of July, 1985 E.B. Jolliffe, Q.C. - Vice-N v "I DISSEM"' (see attached) S.D. Kaufman - Mfmber EBJ:sol I/ B.V., lanigan - Mwber DISSENT I agree with my colleagues that the evidence supported the charges of,the complainant and that the Griever's explanations failed to provide any rational defence for his behaviour. / However, I find that the suspension was excessive in. the circumstances; . In February and March, 1983, Mr. Speroni, the Grievor's immediate superv~isor, "mediated" the situation between the com- plainant and the.Grievor. He met with the complainant and the Grievor twice. According to the complainant,,Mr. Speroni-indicated to her that he didn~'t believe one or the other (of her and the Grievor) as a result of his meet,ings with them. It appeared that he took a neutral position, verbally, and sought only to ~encourage harmonious exchange in the office by discouraging contact between the complainant and the Grievor. He appeared neutral to the complain- ant, notwithstanding his letter tb he,r March 24,; 1983, in which he stated that the Grievor at this meeting "acknowledged that he ,was totally to blame for this harassment charge". His letter was less neutral than he appeared even to the complainant. . 2. 2. Mr. Speroni's letter to the~Grievor, dated March 24, 1983, made no reference to or warning of discipline if his recom- mendations were not followed. Although a copy of the Ontario Manual of Administration Policy re Personal Harassment was given to the Grievor with Mr. Speroni's letter, the only mention of dis- cipline in the Policy is found in the following paragrapbon the last page of the three-page document: Remedial Action: If an investigation confirms that an offence. has occurred and remedial action is warranted: - action shall be taken without delay; - sanctions imposed on the offender must be applied with an understanding of the serious- ness of the misconduct and follow the general principles of corrective discipline: - under no circumstances shall this remedial act Ion, in a substantiated case of harass- ment, penalize the complainant. Mr. Speroni at no point warned the, Grievor that discipline would result if he did not follow the plan in the March 24, 1983 letter. Mr., Speroni told this Board that he advised the complain- ant and the Grievor to avoid contact with one another as much as possible. He stated to the Board that he saw a fine line between advising and instructing, and he did not clarify whether be had made it clear to the Grievor that these were instructions. Under- .~ standably, he thoughtthat this would be self-evident to the Grievor. However, this, along with Mr. Speroni's personal relatiodihip with the Grievor ._) which was not terminated by these events, and with the generally "casual" tone of conversation and banter in the assess- ment office, lulled the Grievor into believing that the matter was not serious enough for discipline to result. 3. I, While I am not in any way condoning the Grievor's con;- ~Lc duct, I am mindful that in March of 1983 he had attempted to jus- tify his conduct to date to Mr. Speronl. In my opinion it was incumbent upon Mr. Speroni at that point to deliver to him a clear,,direct, written warning, directed to him personally, stating that discipline in the formof a suspens i on or dismissal would re- suit from the next substantial'complaint ! I appreciate that t,his is being recommended with the benefit of hindsight, but Mr. Speroni and Mr. Moxley were obligated by the Manual of Administration to follow "the general princip,les of. corrective discipline", which.includes progressive discipline. This was not a case~.in which a lengthy progressive discipline waswarranted, but in my opinion, clear progressive discipline was necessary,"and this, unfortunately, was not pro- vided. I also have a peripheral concern that a Union represen- tative was not invited directly to be present when the Grievor was being interviewed in the course of the investigation in October, 1983. My concern remains, notwithstanding,~that the Grievor was advised that he could have CUnion representative present and declined to have one. This Board learned that during the interview the Grievor saw Mr. hjoxley and Mr. Speroni taking notes, and indicated he thought he sho;lld have a lawyer. AP- parently he suddenly realized it was a serious matter. At n ” 4. I that point, Mr. Moxley advised him that it wasn't necessary for him to have a lawyer. Mr. Speroni agreed with the suggestion that either he or Mr. Moxley may .have.told the Grievor at that point that a lawyer wasn't necessary because "they were there to smooth things over". Further, this Board learned that the drievor was not told what other witnesses had said in their interview during the course of Mr. Moxley's investigatipn, and be was not given a copy of the complainant's ,letter to Mr. Moxley of October 21, 1983, until after~he had been suspended.,, The complainant's letter was simply read to him at his interview. It was a lengthy letter, quite detailed, and there is some doubt in my mind that he was given adequate time to reflect upon itbefore he responded. Although the complaints have beeu made out in the course of these hearings, had the interview been adjourned at the point i, at which the Grievor sensed the seriousness with which .the matter was being handled by Management,, to enable him to retain counsel, or had the Union representative been invited to attend.in the first place, the matter might not have progressed this far. The very casual camaraderie in the office, approved, encouraged and participated in by the Griever's supervisor, in my opinion contributed to the false senses of secnrity the ---Grievbr enjoyed in his office. I agree that there is a dif- ference between joking and personal attacks, but the Kline can 5. 1 5. :n be a fine one, especially in this context. This particular office context did not provide the Griever with any means of differentia- tion, nor did it provide him with an example of restrsint. I appreciate and approve of the seriousness and con- 'scientiousnesswith which Management addressed this complaint in October of 1983, in spite of my comments with regard to some flaws in interviewing the Grievor in the process of investigation.. However, I would have reduced the Griever's penalty to a-two week suspension without pay, rather than four, in view of there having been no prior clear, direct, personal warning to the Griever of the consequences~ that would result ir he persisted. S. D. Kaufman V Union Nominee