GSB#2012-1243

UNION#2012-0337-0004

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Perry)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Janice Johnston

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Tim Mulhall and Laura Josephson Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

May 28, 2013.

Decision

1The grievor in this case, Mr. Eldon Perry, received a five day suspension on January 12, 2012 for his conduct on December 15, 2011.

2At the mediation/arbitration scheduled to deal with this matter, the parties agreed that it was to be dealt with pursuant to the expedited arbitration process set out in Article 22 of the Collective Agreement. That process provides in part:

22.16.1 Except for grievances concerning dismissal, sexual harassment, and/or human rights, and Union grievances with corporate policy implications, all grievances shall proceed through the GSB to a single mediator/arbitrator for the purpose of resolving the grievance in an expeditious and informal manner.

22.16.2 The mediator/arbitrator shall endeavour to assist the parties to settle the grievance by mediation. If the parties are unable to settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration. When determining the grievance by arbitration, the mediator/arbitrator may limit the nature and extent of the evidence and may impose such conditions as he or she considers appropriate. The mediator/arbitrator shall give a succinct decision within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise.

22.16.7 Decisions reached through the mediation/arbitration process shall have no precedential value unless the parties agree otherwise.

3Mr. Perry was disciplined for several reasons, including insubordination and the use of profanities while dealing with his manager. It is a well established principle that the purpose of discipline is corrective. In this case it was intended to send a clear message to the grievor that certain behaviors in the workplace are not acceptable and that he must refrain from this type of behavior or face further discipline. After speaking at some length with the grievor I am not satisfied that he has accepted the need to modify his behavior or that he understands that he must change his way of dealing with those in authority or risk further discipline. He denied engaging in most of the conduct for which he was disciplined and never simply admitted that he had been wrong to do what he did and apologized. I am not satisfied that his response in the future to the events giving rise to the discipline would be significantly different.

4Had the grievor candidly acknowledged the inappropriateness of his conduct in an unqualified manner I would have reduced the length of the suspension. As he did not do so I am not prepared to substitute a lessor suspension in this case. Accordingly the five day suspension stands and the grievance is dismissed.