Discipline and Discharge - Stewart McKelvey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 -
Discipline and Dischargehe was supposed to be working for the city. Hewas also developing and delivering a taxi cabdriver course for the City of Pickering. Thegrievor conceded with respect to several trainingmodules that he had cut and pasted theinformation in their entirety.What the arbitrator said: Discharge upheld.The arbitrator concluded that it was clear on theevidence that the grievor had plagiarizedsignificant portions of the training manual. Doingso placed the grievor in a conflict of interest withhis employer and the city had just cause todiscipline. The arbitrator concluded there wereinsufficient mitigating circumstances to justifyimposing a lesser penalty despite the grievor’sseniority and clean disciplinary record. Heconcluded this on the basis that: Grievor never admitted to plagiarizingthe materials; Grievor didn’t take responsibility foractions; Grievor’s explanations varied –sometimes he claimed there wasnothing wrong with taking the materialsand other times he claimed that he didn’ttake it at all, but reproduced it frommemory; Never disclosed to his manager that hewas using city materials; and Emails from grievor showed he wasconcerned that others might find outabout his use of these materials.Employer LossesCook and Louisbourg Pipelines (2011:NBARB)What Happened: Grievor was laboureremployed since 2004 with no prior discipline.The employer was in the business of installingnational gas pipelines to residential andcommercial properties in New Brunswick. In July2010, grievor was asked if he would act as a“boxman”. He said no because he hadn’t beenhired as a boxman, wasn’t paid as such and mayor may not have training. Three days later,grievor was discharged for refusal without anyjustification to work as a boxman.What the court said: Reinstatement with fullback pay. The employer didn’t order the grievorto perform the tasks of a boxman – therefore theemployer had no justification to discipline thegrievor:The law is clear, that for an employee to beinsubordinate he or she must refuse tofollow an order. This means that theemployer must establish that an authorizedmember of management has given theemployee a clear order and that theemployee understood the order.CUPE, Local 2330 and Highland CommunityResidential Services (HCRS) (2012: NSARB)What happened: Grievor, a 16-year residentialcounsellor, was terminated for: smoking on the- 7 -
Page 1: Discipline and DischargeEmployer Wi
Page 4 and 5: Discipline and Dischargehave known
Page 8 and 9: Discipline and Dischargejob; failur
Page 10 and 11: Discipline and Discharge The grievo
Page 12: Discipline and Dischargeabout being

Discipline and Discharge - Stewart McKelvey

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

Delete template?

Save as template?