Maureen K. Saltman

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged following allegations that he asked a female intermittent inmate to take her clothes off and invited her to meet him at a restaurant outside the institution.

The employer also alleged he made a discriminatory remark during the investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's identification of the grievor as the perpetrator was fundamentally flawed, as the complainant's description was insufficient and another officer with a similar name was on duty in the area.

The Board concluded the allegations were not proven and directed the grievor's reinstatement.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its newly assigned counsel had a prior commitment at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Over the Union's objection, the Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment request.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged for alleged misconduct involving a female inmate.

At arbitration, the employer sought to introduce evidence of alleged post-discharge misconduct (consorting with a known prostitute and impersonating a correctional officer) as an independent ground for discharge or for consideration in the board's remedial authority.

The union objected to the introduction of this evidence.

The arbitrator held that the post-discharge conduct was too remote, occurred a full year after the discharge, and was unrelated to the original grounds for discharge or the employer's legitimate interests.

The employer's request to introduce the evidence was denied.