GSB#2011-0184

UNION#2010-0551-0056

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Dodds)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Nimal Dissanayake

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Frank Inglis Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Brian Scott Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

February 23, 2012.

Decision

1This decision relates to a discipline grievance filed by Mr. Darrell Dodds, (“grievor”) who is employed as a Probation and Parole Officer. The grievance came before the Board for mediation-arbitration pursuant to article 22.16 of the collective agreement. Attempts to reach a mediated settlement having failed, the Board was presented with facts and submissions.

2The grievor received a three day suspension without pay for violation of Ministry policy and procedure on note taking and case recording standards; on supervision of offenders; and on internet security, which came to light during a case management review.

3The employer took the position that the three day suspension without pay imposed was just, having regard to the serious nature of the Policy and Procedure violations. The union took the position that in all of the circumstances, discipline was not called for. Instead, the employer could have counselled the grievor and emphasized the need to follow policy and procedure. In the alternative, it was submitted that a three day suspension was way too harsh and ought to be significantly reduced.

4I have considered the potentially serious consequences of the grievor’s failure to follow policy and procedure and the fact that it was not a case of the grievor not being clear as to what was expected by the policy and procedure. He simply neglected his duties. In the circumstances I conclude that there was just cause for discipline. In assessing the appropriate level of discipline there are significant mitigatory factors in favour of the grievor. He has some 26 years of service. He has had no prior discipline. Nor has he had any negative performance reviews or other prior warning or even counselling that his performance may be below expected standards. Most significantly, when confronted with the employer’s findings, the grievor readily accepted responsibility for his deficient performance and agreed that improvement was required.

5In all of the circumstances, I find that while the employer had cause for discipline, its response was disproportionate for the purpose of correcting the behaviour. I order that the three day suspension be struck from all records and that the grievor be compensated for his losses resulting from that suspension. Instead, a written letter of warning shall be placed on file. The grievor should clearly understand that further failure on his part to follow policy and procedure could result in progressively more severe discipline.

6The grievance is allowed on the foregoing basis.