Discipline and Discharge - Stewart McKelvey

Discipline and DischargeWhat the arbitrator said: Discharge upheld.The arbitrator noted that hospital policy clearlyset out the critical significance of theconfidentiality of patient information referring to itas “a cornerstone in the present healthcarecontext”. The policy also set out potentialdisciplinary consequences for unauthorizeddisclosure of confidential patient information.The arbitrator found that the grievor was awarethat the suicide victim was a patient of thehospital. Further, the grievor lacked candour withthe hospital in the conduct of the subsequentinvestigation. Even if he hadn’t known that thesuicide victim was a patient, he should’ve actedwith reasonable diligence to maintain theintegrity of confidential information. He should’veacted on the presumption that the suicide victimwas a patient. The arbitrator found that theemployer had established that the grievor hadengaged in culpable misconduct. In consideringwhether a lesser penalty would be just andreasonable, he noted, although there was someelement of the actions being spur of themoment, they are primarily premeditated.Additionally, the grievor wasn’t truly remorsefulor contrite and didn’t fully accept responsibilityfor his misconduct. He also had a “somewhatcheckered disciplinary record”.The Grievance of “Mr. Q”What happened: Grievor terminated forviolating employer’s food safety policy. He was ashort service employee who worked as a meatsmokehouse operator. One of his duties wasmonitoring temperature charts; a particularlyimportant task for food safety. He was found tobe entering wrong temperatures on theworksheets. Despite progressive discipline, thegrievor continued to make this error.What the arbitrator said: Discharge upheld.The arbitrator noted that there was little tomitigate the grievor’s repeated misconduct.However, he was honest in the investigations,apologized and faced consequences in eachinstance of wrongdoing. Due to his age, it wasunlikely he would find suitable alternative work.Discharge from employment would imposesubstantial hardship on his family including ason in college and aging parents that hefinancially supported. Still, the arbitrator foundthat reinstatement wouldn’t be appropriate in thecircumstances. The discharge was upheld.City of Toronto and Canadian Union of PublicEmployees (Carl Bodnar)What happened: Grievor employed as trainingand development specialist in taxi section oflicensing services of Toronto. Grievor also had apart time job at a community college. The cityclaimed copyright in manuals used for taxitraining courses. Over the years, city hadprovided the manual to cities of Ottawa andCalgary for a fee and had attempted to sell itstraining expertise elsewhere. The grievor’ssupervisor asked for copies of the trainingmanuals used by the grievor at the college. Afterreviewing the manuals, the supervisor concludedthe grievor had plagiarized substantial portionsof the city’s training manuals and dischargedhim. Following the discharge, the supervisorexamined the grievor’s computer and foundsubstantial portions of training materials storedthere, which in his opinion should not have been.A review of his email indicated that he had beenconducting business with a college during time- 6 -