An employee who is by brz27029


									The Steward
June 1999                                                                                           Vol 10, No 3

What constitutes abandoning a job?
Clarification and contract language
By Rob Wotherspoon

        n employee who is
        absent from work, not
        on a recognized leave,
can be dismissed on the basis
that the employee has aban-
doned their position. Article
10.10 of the Master Agreement
sets out how dismissal based
on “abandonment” may
occur. Article 10.10 reads:
   An employee who fails to
report for duty for 10 consecutive
work days without having
informing the employer of the
reason for their absence will be
presumed to have abandoned
their position. An employee shall
be afforded the opportunity to                expired.                          taking.
rebut such presumption and                       In the earliest award, arbi-      The facts of a subsequent
demonstrate that there were                   trator Rory McDonald con-         award, also decided by arbitra-
reasonable grounds for not                    firmed that the employee must     tor McDonald, were that
having informed the employer.                 be given an opportunity to        several months after the
   Similar language is found in               demonstrate that there were       grievor’s illness and injury
most other BCGEU collective                   reasonable grounds for not        benefits expired, the employer
agreements. Three recent                      informing the employer of the     attempted to contact the
arbitration awards have                       reason for their absence.         grievor to determine her status
interpreted this language.                    However, he held that there is    with respect to returning to
These awards involve employ-                  an onus on the employee to        work. The grievor was asked to
ees who continued to be                       insist on a review of the         provide medical evidence that
absent from work after their                  circumstances and provide a       she was not fit to return to
illness and injury benefits had               rebuttal in a timely way and if   work. When this information
                                              that doesn’t happen, the          was not forthcoming, the
The STEWARD                                   opportunity to explain is lost.
                                              He found that the employee
                                                                                manager wrote to the grievor
                                                                                to advise her that she had
Contract interpretation .......... 1
                                              had not provided an explana-      abandoned her employment
Determining the credibility
                                              tion for her absence in a         and was no longer an em-
of a witness ............................ 2
                                              timely way. He also found that    ployee. The grievor phoned the
Employer policies .................... 4
                                              the grievance could not suc-      manager after receiving the
Independent contractor or
                                              ceed because the grievance was    last letter. The arbitrator found
employee? .............................. 5
                                              filed more than 30 days after     that the conversation left the
Determining dismissals .......... 7
                                              the grievor became aware of
An inside job ........................... 7                                                Continued on Page 3
                                              the position the employer was

                                                                                  The STEWARD, June 1999 — 1
Determining the credibility of a witness
By David Streb
                                                                            sistent statement. The state-
An issue that often arises in arbitration is whether or                     ment can be either written or
not a witness is telling the truth. This issue often arises                 oral. What is required is that
in the event of conflict of evidence among witnesses.                       the witness has made a state-
                                                                            ment on some other occasion

       he four main criteria          of conflict of evidence, cannot be    that contradicts part of the
       used in determining            gauged solely by the test of          testimony that the witness will
       credibility is as follows:     whether the personal demeanour        give at a hearing. While this
1. The first criterion, the           of the particular witness carried     can be a very strong indication
demeanour of the witness, is          conviction of truth. The test
difficult to assess and is not        must reasonably subject his story        In commenting on the
usually given a lot of weight         to an examination of its consist-
by an arbitrator.                     ency with the probabilities that         consistency of the
2. When considering the               surround the currently existing          evidence with prob-
second criterion, opportu-            conditions. In short the real test
nity to observe, it is impor-         of truth of the story of a witness       abilities, adjudicators
tant to bear in mind the              in such a case must be its               consider whether the
difference between seeing             harmony with the preponderance
                                                                               evidence is consistent
an event and assuming the             of the probabilities that a practi-
event took place. Witnesses           cal and informed person would            with human nature,
often testify to what are             readily recognize as reasonable in       known behaviour, or
simply their own conclu-              that place and in those condi-
sions, but these conclusions          tions.                                   factual circumstances.
are expressed as facts.                  In commenting on the
3. The third criterion is inter-      consistency of the evidence           of credibility and may be
est or bias. It is often argued       with probabilities, adjudica-         difficult to overcome at hear-
that any union member will            tors consider whether the             ing it is essential that the
be biased in favour of                evidence is consistent with           witness be given an opportu-
another member and like-              human nature, known behav-            nity to explain the inconsist-
wise that a member of                 iour, or factual circumstances.       encies.
management will be biased             It is important to apply an
in favour of management.              objective standard.                   David Streb is a BCGEU Advocacy
However, this argument will              NOTE: Another test of              Staff Representative.
not usually succeed without           credibility is a previous incon-
more direct evidence of
actual bias. In general it is
reasonable to assume that
to the contrary good faith
                                         The   STEWARD
                                        NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR BCGEU STEWARDS AND OFFICERS
should be presumed.
4. The most important cri-              June, 1999
terion in evaluating credibility        The STEWARD is published by the Advocacy and the Liaison,
and evidence in general is              Research and Communications Departments of the B.C.
the inherent probabilities of           Government and Service Employees’ Union, 4911 Canada Way,
the testimony or the consist-           Burnaby, B.C., V5G 3W3.
ency of the evidence with               Telephone: (604) 291-9611 or toll free at 1-800-663-1674.
probabilities. The best
                                        Fax: (604) 291-1537
known case that advances
this reasoning is Faryna v.             E-mail:
Chorney, which states in                Website:
part: The credibility of interested     This edition edited by Jim Molnar
witnesses, particularly in cases

The STEWARD, June 1999 — 2
Continued from Page 1
                                     Arbitrator John Kinzie found
grievor with the impression          that this article did not apply
                                     where the employee was not           Under Abandonment of
that the manager left open the
possibility for her to return to     scheduled to report to work.           Position language:
work including possible re-          The grievor was in receipt of       1. The employer has the right
                                     STIIP benefits but was not             to ask employees to pro-
training for employment in
                                     eligible for LTD benefits. She         vide updates of their status
another ministry. The grievor
                                     provided the employer with at          with respect to continuing
subsequently wrote two letters                                              absences.
to the manager in which she          least one more update on her
confirmed her understanding of       medical condition shortly after     2. An employee has an obliga-
the conversation. The manager        her STIIP benefits expired. The        tion to keep the employer
did not respond to these two         medical prognosis was that the         informed of any changes of
letters. Finally, the grievor        grievor was not yet fit to return      address to enable the
                                     to work. About a year later, the       employer to update the
received clearance to return to
                                     employer made a number of              employee’s status with
work from her doctor and
                                     attempts to contact the grievor        respect to continued
provided a medical certificate to
the manager. The manager then        but was unable to due to the
advised the grievor that his         fact that the grievor had moved     3. An employee must be given
earlier position with respect to     and the employer did not have          an opportunity to demon-
abandonment remained un-             her change of address on file.         strate that there were
changed. The arbitrator found        The grievor had submitted a            reasonable reasons for not
                                     change of address that was             informing the employer of
that abandonment had not
                                     apparently lost for reasons            the reason for a long
occurred because the grievor
                                     beyond her control. Arbitrator         absence. The employer
was not given the opportunity
                                     Kinzie commented that an               can’t simply close its mind
to rebut the presumption under                                              once it decides that the
article 10.10. He stated that the    employee has a duty to keep the
                                                                            employee has abandoned
employer is entitled to know         employer informed of changes
                                                                            their employment.
the reason for the continued         in status or address. Several
absence in order to determine        months later, the grievor talked    4. If the employer disputes the
its adequacy. As part of the         to staff in the employer’s ben-        medical reasons given for a
                                     efits department. The grievor          continuing absence, there is
process of determining such
                                     was not given an opportunity to        an onus on the employer to
adequacy, the employer has the
                                     explain her failure to contact         seek clarification of the
right to verify the reason for                                              medical opinion.
absence. But in the circum-          the employer before then.
stances of this case, once the       Several months after that, the      5. There is an onus on an
employer was informed that           grievor obtained a medical             employee to insist that
the grievor’s doctor did not         certificate from her personal          the employer review the
clear her to return to work, the     physician clearing her to return       circumstances of an alleged
                                     to work. When she informed             abandonment.
employer could have sought
clarification of the medical         the employer that she was ready     6. The employee must provide
opinion. However, the manager        to return to work she was              reasons for continued
had closed his mind to the           informed that she had aban-            absence in a timely way.
subject of abandonment and           doned her employment and            7. Once the employee is made
had not afforded the grievor the     was no longer an employee. In          aware that the employer
opportunity to rebut the pre-        addition to determining that           considers that abandon-
sumption of abandonment. At          Article 10.10 was not applicable       ment has occurred, the
the arbitration hearing the          to a situation where an em-            employee must file a
employer also argued that the        ployee is not scheduled to             grievance within 30 days
grievance should be dismissed        report to work, arbitrator Kinzie      (or whatever time line
on the basis that it was filed out   stated that the employer didn’t        applies to any other griev-
of time. However, the arbitrator     afford the grievor an opportu-         ance under your collective
found that because the grievor       nity to explain the reason for         agreement).
had been led to believe that the     her absence as required under       8. Abandonment language
manager had not closed its           this language.                         may not be applicable
mind to reinstating her, it was                                             where the employee has
reasonable for her to have not                                              not actually been scheduled
filed her grievance earlier.         Rob Wotherspoon is a BCGEU             for work.
    In the most recent award,        Advocacy Staff Representative.
                                                                         The STEWARD, June 1999 — 3
Are they in conflict with your contract?
By Chris Anderson

        n employee of the K.V.P.
        Co. Ltd., of Ramsey
         Ontario, Raoul
Veronneau, was terminated
June 24, 1964 because, con-
trary to a company rule, his
wages had been garnisheed.
Brother Veronneau was a
mechanic, a good one accord-
ing to his supervisor, and had
worked for K.V.P. for several
years. The only grounds the
employer had for discharging
him was that he had violated a
rule that they had posted some
six months earlier.
   The rule said:                  affected before the company          discharge of an employee, such
   “Effective December 1, 1963,    can act on it.                       rule is NOT binding upon the
any employee on whose behalf       5. The employee concerned            Board of Arbitration. The
the company is obligated to        must have been notified that a       simple reason for this is that
process more than one garnishee,   breach of such rule could result     the very issue before the board
will be discharged”                in his discipline or discharge, if   may require it to pass upon the
   Brother Veronneau filed a       the rule is used as a foundation     reasonableness or other factors
grievance and at arbitration,      for the discipline or discharge.     that may affect the validity of
the board turned their minds       6. Such rule should have been        the rule itself.
to the question of company         consistently enforced by the            The board said:
rules. The resulting award has     company from the time it was            “The rights of employees
been accepted over the years as    introduced.                          under a collective agreement
one that defines clearly the          Having set those parameters       cannot be impaired or dimin-
general principles that must be    down as guidelines, the board        ished by such a rule but only
followed by employers when         then summarized the effect of        by agreement of the parties.”
constructing, implementing         such a rule in the event the            The board found in
and enforcing the rules, regula-   discipline or discharge is           Veronneau’s case that the rule
tions or policies that are to be   challenged at arbitration. They      was unreasonable and incon-
visited on their bargaining unit   took the position that if the        sistent with the collective
employees.                         breach of the rule is the foun-
   The board found that while      dation for the discipline or                    continued on Page 5
the making of rules is generally
an inherent right of manage-
ment, a rule or regulation, if
                                   Comments, story ideas,
not subsequently agreed to by
the union, must satisfy the
                                   criticism, suggestions welcome
following requisites:              The Steward is published specifically to meet the needs of BCGEU
1. It must not be inconsistent     stewards and local officers. If there are topics or issues that you
with the collective agreement.     would like us to cover, please let us know.
2. It must not be unreasonable.
                                   Write: The Steward, 4911 Canada Way, Burnaby, V5G 3W3
3. It must be clear and un-
equivocal.                         Fax: 604-291-1537
4. It must be brought to the
attention of the employee

The STEWARD, June 1999 — 4
continued from Page 4
                                     The case of Peggy Havard:
agreement. He was reinstated
with full back pay.                  Independent contractor
   It is important to remember
that the onus is on the em-          or employee?
ployer with regard to their          By George Reamsbottom
rules. They must ensure that
the rules are not in conflict        The Peggy Havard decision          at the urging of the BCGEU
with the agreement, that they                                           decided that the 12-point test
are reasonable, and that they        was the third in a series of
                                                                        adopted by both Ladner and
are clear and unambiguous.           wins for the BCGEU at              Bird would be applied to
                                     arbitrations that sought to        determine which government
It is important to                   determine whether certain          contractors – of those re-
remember that the                    contractors were                   viewed by the Korbin Com-
                                                                        mission – were independent
onus is on the                       independent contractors            contractors and which in law
employer with                        or employees under the             under the collective agreement
regard to their rules.               common law of contract.            were employees of the govern-
                                                                        ment of B.C.
They must ensure
                                            rbitrator Hugh Ladner,         The union and the govern-
that the rules are not                      in the January 18, 1990     ment, at the conclusion of the
                                             Alice Albert Award,        Korbin Commission, agreed
in conflict with the                 summarized 12 points from a        that any outstanding disputes
agreement, that they                 long line of previous cases in     left unresolved by the commis-
are reasonable, and                  Canada and England that he         sion on whether a contractor
                                     adopted as a test to distinguish   was an independent contrac-
that they are clear                  an independent contractor          tor or an employee would be
and unambiguous.                     from an employee. He found         arbitrated by Korbin.
                                     that Albert, a policy analyst         The first (and only) test case
Having done that, they must          hired on a personal service        arbitrated was Peggy Havard,
ensure that ALL employees            contract with the Ministry of      an interpreter at Rathtrevor
affected must be aware of the        Education, was in law under        Provincial Park on Vancouver
rules – simply posting them on       the (meaning of the) collective    Island.
a bulletin board may not be          agreement an employee of the          Korbin, over the objection
enough.                              government of B.C.                 of the government in Peggy
    If the employer intends to          Arbitrator Richard Bird in      Havard, adopted as proposed
discipline someone if they           the February 19, 1992 de           by the union the 12-point test
break the rule, then they must       Montezuma and Felkner              previously relied on by Ladner
prove that the employee was          award, adopted the 12-point        and Bird.
aware of that discipline may         summary used by Ladner in             The 12 points are:
arise if the rule is broken.         the Alice Albert decision. Bird    l.   control of alleged em-
    Finally, the employer must       found that 11 of 13 employees           ployees;
then ensure that they are            of “Syscom Consulting Ltd.”,       2. ownership of tools and
consistent when dealing with         all of whom worked in the               equipment;
employees who break the rule.        Vancouver Data Centre of the       3. chance of profit;
It is worth noting that many         Ministry of the Attorney           4. risk of loss;
employers have a great deal of       General, were employees of         5. burden of remuneration;
difficulty with this last require-   the government of B.C. in law      6. disciplinary powers;
ment.                                under the collective agree-        7. hiring;
    The full award may be            ment.                              8. dismissal;
found at 16 L.A.C. page 73.             Judi Korbin, after being        9. alleged employee’s percep-
                                     named as Chair of the Com-              tion of relationship;
                                     mission of Enquiry into the        10. intention of the parties;
Chris Anderson is a BCGEU            Public Service (the Korbin
Advocacy Staff Representative.       Commission) in March 1992,                     continued on Page 6

                                                                          The STEWARD, June 1999 — 5
continued from Page 5             Branch.                             planning and organizing the
                                                                      programs and activities speci-
                                  6. Disciplinary Powers Havard
11. integration into the em-                                          fied in her contract. Parks
                                  testified that she would seek
    ployer’s organization;                                            Branch employees supervised
                                  prior approval from the Parks
12. alleged employee’s other                                          her and her staff and partici-
                                  Branch district supervisor
    work commitments.                                                 pated in some programs. She
                                  before disciplining her assist-
                                                                      clearly was integrated with the
  Korbin found for the fol-       ants. If she was told by the
                                                                      Employer’s organization.
lowing reasons that Havard        district supervisor to discipline
was an employee under the         any of her assistants, she said     12. Other Work Commitments
collective agreement of the       she would have done what she        Havard had two quite small
government of B.C.                was told. Havard believed she       contracts, one at another
                                  herself could have been disci-      provincial park and one with
1. Control The Parks Branch
                                  plined by the Parks Branch.         the local school board. How-
determined the days and hours
                                                                      ever, she was dependent on
Havard worked and the pro-        7. Hiring Havard had to have
                                                                      the Rathtrevor Park contract
grams and activities she put      the approval of the Parks
                                                                      for the very major portion of
on for visitors to the park.      Branch to hire any of her
                                                                      her income. She would not
Korbin would have had to ask      assistants. She said she would
                                                                      have been able to hire her two
approval of the Parks Branch      not have been able to hire
                                                                      assistants without this income.
if she wanted to change any-      anyone not approved.
                                                                         The government appealed
                                  8. Dismissal Havard said she        the Havard decision to the
2. Tools and Equipment She        could not have dismissed her        B.C. Labour Relations Board
had to work in the park and       assistants without the ap-          and lost. The board found
used facilities in the park and   proval of the Parks Branch.         Korbin’s reasons for her
equipment which for the very      The Parks Branch could have         decision were sound. The
large part belonged to the        terminated her contract with        board also upheld the 12-point
Parks Branch. Any displays or     two weeks notice.                   test.
art work she developed be-
                                  9. Perception of Relationship       George Reamsbottom is a Senior
came the property of the Parks
                                  Havard, who had worked              Practioner in Advocacy.
                                  previously for three years as
3. Chance of Profit Her budget    an interpreter while an em-
was approved by the Parks         ployee of the Parks Branch,
Branch. It covered her ex-        said her perception was that
penses and allowed an hourly      she was an employee. The
rate for the hours she and her    perception of her assistants
assistants worked. There was      was that she was an employee
no room for her to make a         of the Parks Branch and the
profit above that.                perception of visitors to the
                                  park was that she was an
4. Risk of Loss There was none.
Her expenses were covered. If
she wanted to spend money in      10. The intention of the
excess of that provided in the    parties was that Havard would
budget, she would have had to     be an independent contractor,
negotiate an amendment to         but Korbin said the need to
her contract to provide for       control and direct the pro-
extra funding.                    grams and activities she was
                                  responsible for putting on,
5. Burden of Remuneration
                                  made it impossible for the
The Parks Branch provided the
                                  Parks Branch to maintain an
funding for Havard and the
                                  arm’s length relationship with
programs she agreed to put on
under her contract. Havard
paid her assistants out of her    11. Integration Korbin regu-
own bank account but the          larly met with Parks Branch
money came from the Parks         employees in the process of

The STEWARD, June 1999 — 6
Legal test for discipline and dismissal
By Colleen Fitzpatrick

         ver 22 years ago, the      Martelli called The Province’s        penalty. The union appealed
         William Scott case was     news editor with some critical        the award to the LRB.
         decided by Paul Weiler,    remarks about management                 Weiler, chairing the appeal
then Chair of the Labour            practices at the plant. Her           hearing, reviewed the legal
Relations Board. Ever since, it’s   remarks were reproduced in a          history of dismissal, from
been regarded as an arbitra-        news article. She was fired in        English common law to the
tor’s principal guide to review-    September 1975. She had been          evolving law of the collective
ing dismissals for culpable         discharged by the same em-            agreement and labour code
conduct.                            ployer on a previous occasion,        legislation. He found that the
   Margaret Martelli worked at      but was reinstated by an              Code’s requirement of arbitra-
William Scott and Co., a            arbitration board, which              tors to deal with the real
poultry processing plant in         substituted a one-year suspen-        substance and merits of a
Coquitlam. There had been           sion for the dismissal.               dismissal grievance fundamen-
media coverage about a dis-            The arbitration board,             tally changed the previous,
pute involving the company, a       which heard the details of her        common-law definitions of
competitor, and the provincial      second discharge, concluded           “cause”.
government that had resulted        her actions justified dismissal,         As a result of this funda-
in a backlog of chickens and        and further, her employment           mental change, arbitrators, he
turkeys awaiting slaughter by       record did not indicate reasons       said, “should pose three
the warring companies. Ms.          for a substitution of a lesser
                                                                                      continued on Page 8

                                    the workplace first crack at          win. Arbitrators are generally
WORK LAW                            vacancies.
                                       There are two main types of
                                                                          reluctant to substitute their
                                                                          view of skill and ability for
An inside job                       clauses. The first is a seniority
                                    clause, where the applicant
                                                                          that of the employer. Their
                                                                          thinking is that employers are
Judith McCormack/CALM               with most seniority will get the      in the best position to know what
                                    job, provided he or she can           is required for the job and to
   “The cook,” said Saki, a         perform the work. The second          assess the qualifications of work-
famous writer, “was a good          is a competitive clause, where        ers in light of those requirements.
cook, as cooks go; and as cooks     applicants will first be rated on        Unfortunately, this is some-
go, she went.” What he didn’t       their skills and abilities. Senior-   thing of a leap of faith. Deci-
mention was that in a union-        ity will only be the deciding         sions about applicants may be
ized workplace, her vacant          factor if their skills and abili-     made by members of manage-
position would likely be filled     ties are relatively equal.            ment who are not particularly
by a job posting process.              Seniority clauses often work       familiar with the details of a
   How that process works           smoothly, although disputes           job, who are rooting for a
depends on the collective           may arise over whether a              particular applicant, or who
agreement. Usually, job posting     worker can do the job. Com-           have made up their minds in
clauses set out certain rules       petitive clauses, widespread in       advance. Like the cook in
both for posting job vacancies      white collar workplaces, are          Saki’s story, the time for think-
and for choosing people to fill     another story. Skill and ability      ing that the employer always
them.                               are frequently in the eye of the      knows best should have come
    The purpose of this kind of     beholder, and an employer’s           and gone by now.
clause is to establish a fair       view may be influenced by
process for deciding who will       unreasonable perceptions,             Judith McCormack is a lawyer
get what job. The idea is to        both for and against particular       with Sack Goldblatt Mitchell in
minimize or eliminate favourit-     applicants.                           Toronto and former chair of the
ism or other improper consid-          In many cases, grievances          Ontario Labour Relations Board.
erations. As well, job posting      can be filed. However, these          Distributed by the Canadian
clauses usually give workers in     cases are usually difficult to        Association of Labour Media.

                                                                            The STEWARD, June 1999 — 7
Continued from Page 7

distinct questions in the
typical discharge grievance.
First, has the employee given
just and reasonable cause for
some form of discipline by the
employer? If so, was the
employer’s decision to dismiss
the employee an excessive
response in all of the circum-
stances of the case? Finally, if
the arbitrator does consider
discharge excessive, what
alternative measure should be
substituted as just and equitable?”
    The language of the Code
meant that an arbitrator’s
evaluation of an employer’s           harsh treatment (an issue          after she was fired, she sent
decision to dismiss must be           which seems to arise particu-      written apologies to the em-
especially searching, the board       larly in cases of discipline for   ployer and to the resident,
found. To assist arbitrators          wildcat strikes)?                  with postdated cheques repay-
with this evaluation, the board          Applying the initial three      ing the loan.
posed the following questions:        questions to the grievance, the       Applying the Scott questions
(i) How serious is the immedi-        board found the grievor gave       to the matter before him, the
ate offence of the employee           the employer just cause for        arbitrator found the grievor
that precipitated the discharge       some discipline, that in light     was deserving of discipline.
(for example, the contrast            of the circumstances, includ-      Per Scott, he stated the ques-
between theft and absentee-           ing the grievor’s disciplinary     tion before him was whether
ism)?                                 record, discharge was not          discharge was excessive, and if
(ii) Was the employee’s con-          excessive, and that because the    so, what was the appropriate
duct premeditated, or repeti-         grievor’s demonstrated atti-       discipline?
tive; or instead, was it a mo-        tude toward the employer was          The arbitrator stated his
mentary and emotional aber-           recalcitrant, no alternative       agreement with the employer
ration, perhaps provoked by           measure should be substituted      that the conduct of the grievor
someone else (for example, in         for the dismissal.                 amounted to breach of trust.
a fight between two employees)?          Despite the outcome of the      But her previous good work
(iii) Does the employee have a        Scott case, it has been utilized   record, as well as evidence of
record of long service with the       to reinstate many a grievor.       genuine remorse, were circum-
employer in which he proved              At a recent discharge griev-    stances that weighed in favour
an able worker and enjoyed a          ance, a health care worker         of reinstating her. A penalty of
relatively free disciplinary          received a loan of $1,000 from     six months’ suspension was
history?                              a resident in intermediate care    substituted, because of the
(iv) Has the employer attempted       who admitted to be fully           seriousness of the offence and
earlier and more moderate forms       capable of managing her own        because the grievor didn’t
of corrective discipline of this      finances. The employer agreed      reveal the matter for eighteen
employee which did not prove          that the loan was voluntary,       months.
successful in solving the problem     but discharge was appropriate         William Scott is, 22 years
(for example, of persistent late-     because the grievor’s actions      later, the framework of analy-
ness or absenteeism)?                 were a conflict of interest, and   sis an arbitrator will utilize in
(v) Is the discharge of this          contrary to well-known poli-       any hearing involving dis-
individual employee in accord-        cies. The grievor had no prior     charge for culpable conduct.
ance with the consistent              discipline, and had seven
policies of the employer or           years’ seniority. Her evalua-      Colleen Fitzpatrick is a BCGEU
does it appear to single out          tions indicated she was a          Advocacy Staff Representative.
this person for arbitrary and         capable employee. Shortly

The STEWARD, June 1999 — 8

To top