GSB# 2006-2031, 2006-2032
Union# G-85-06-BO, G-88-06-BO
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Amalgamated Transit Union - Local 1587 (Clements)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Greater Toronto Transit Authority - GO Transit)
Employer
BEFORE
Ken Petryshen
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Simon Blackstone Green & Chercover Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Sven Poysa Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Barristers and Solicitors
HEARING
April 11, October 2, 3, 16, November 27, 2007; January 14, 2008.
Decision
Ms. Lee-Ann Clements had been employed since October of 1998 as a bus driver for the Employer. By letter dated October 16, 2006, Mr. Greg Duyn, Acting Manager, Bus Operation (West Region), terminated her employment for breaching a Conditions of Continued Employment agreement when she made a comment toward passengers on September 29, 2006, that was considered offensive. Ms. Clements grieved the discharge, claiming that it was without just cause. She also grieved the Employer’s decision to suspend her pending an investigation. It took seven days to complete the hearing of this dispute.
At the conclusion of final argument, I advised the parties that if it would take some time to complete a decision with reasons that I would consider issuing a “bottom line” decision. No objection was taken to the issuing of a “bottom line” decision and indeed, the Union encouraged such an approach. I am satisfied in the circumstances that it is appropriate to give a “bottom line” decision in the instant case.
After reviewing the oral and documentary evidence and the submissions of counsel, it is my conclusion that the Employer has not demonstrated that it had just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Clements. Accordingly, I direct GO Transit to reinstate Ms. Clements forthwith to her former employment as a bus driver. Given her length of time away from the Employer’s workforce, I assume her reinstatement will entail some driver training. I will continue to remain seized of the grievances to determine what penalty, if any, should be substituted for the discharge. The decision addressing all issues with reasons will follow in due course.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of February 2008.