11.07.2015 Views

Discipline and Discharge - Stewart McKelvey

Discipline and Discharge - Stewart McKelvey

Discipline and Discharge - Stewart McKelvey

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Discipline</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Discharge</strong>have known there was a progressive disciplineprovision in the collective agreement. Therefore,he should’ve taken additional steps to contacthis employer to advise that he wouldn’t beshowing up for a scheduled shift. Further, themanager testified that there were no messagesleft at the time that the grievor alleges he calledwith respect to the shifts in question.What the arbitrator said: <strong>Discharge</strong> upheld.Lakeridge Health Corporation <strong>and</strong> OntarioPublic Service Employees Union (BogdanKoscik)What happened: Grievor discharged forallegedly falsifying overtime claims. This wasbrought to the attention of the supervisor whenanother employee made a remark about leavingat a certain time because the grievor hadalready left. This was inconsistent with theovertime claimed for that day. Characterized as“time theft” by the employer. There were alsoseveral incidents of insubordination leading up tothe discovery of the falsified overtime claims.The falsified claims <strong>and</strong> the misconduct wereestablished on the facts.What the arbitrator said: <strong>Discharge</strong> upheld.Although the employer didn’t engage inprogressive discipline, the arbitrator found thatthe overall impact of the grievor’s conduct madeit difficult to rationalize reinstatement. This wascompounded by post termination conduct. Thisincluded emailing the CEO directly to discredithis manager <strong>and</strong> to attempt to outline theinjustice of his termination. The grievor alsocontacted the sales manager for a supplier ofthe employer indicating he was going to takedown the employer <strong>and</strong> the manager herself.The arbitrator found that the grievor’s posttermination conduct put him in a dramaticconflict of interest with his former employer. Hefurther found that reinstatement would be totallyinappropriate in the circumstances.Invista (Canada) Company <strong>and</strong>Communications, Energy <strong>and</strong> PaperGrievorsUnion of Canada (H. Thompson)What happened: Grievor discharged forremoval of company property, specifically aportable generator, without authorization. Theportable generator was never found. TheArbitrator found there was sufficient evidence toconclude on a balance of probabilities that thegrievor had removed the generator. The decisionwas primarily based on established facts <strong>and</strong>findings of credibility.What the arbitrator said: <strong>Discharge</strong> upheld....what is strikingly evident in this uniquecase is [the grievor’s] repeated lack offorthrightness in integral aspects aboutwhat occurred. In my view, this repeatedlack of forthrightness can’t be crediblyreconciled on any principle basis, <strong>and</strong> isnot without significance.The grievor’s lack of forthrightness was anattempt to conceal the fact that the grievor didactually take the generator. The grievor hadengaged in serious misconduct. Further, hehadn’t acknowledged his culpability. It wasn’tjust unreasonable in the circumstances toimpose a lesser penalty. <strong>Discharge</strong> was upheld.- 4 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!