Following an incident where it was alleged that she counselled coworkers to refuse compulsory overtime and then bullied a coworker who broke ranks, a postal worker received two suspensions.
The first verbal suspension was handed out on the spot following the incident for defying a supervisor’s direct order. The second suspension was assessed later, following an investigation into the bullying incident.
The union grieved, raising preliminary objections to both suspensions, arguing that the imposed discipline should be declared void because the employer had violated the collective agreement by failing to provide written notice within the 10-day period specified by the contract.
While testimony diverged as to whether or not A.B. acknowledged being directed to go to the supervisor’s office following the January 18 incident for “paperwork,” it was not disputed that she left the postal depot before she could be issued a written follow-up to the verbal suspension.
Suspension letter sent to wrong address
It was also accepted that the suspension letter that was couriered to her immediately after she left was misdirected to the wrong address and that A.B. had not been served with any written notice by the time she returned to work on the following Monday.
Upon her return to work half an hour before the start of her Monday shift, A.B. also refused separate requests by two supervisors to go either to the office or the cafeteria.
A.B. left the depot after a third supervisor told her that she was trespassing, instructed her to leave and threatened to call the police if she did not comply. Escorted from the premises, A.B. also refused that supervisor’s attempt to serve her with the suspension letter as she left in her car.
The following day, the misdirected letter, which also referenced the employer’s intent to investigate the alleged bullying incident was properly delivered to A.B. On January 28, A.B. received a second letter informing her that she was suspended pending an investigation into the alleged January 18 bullying incident. Following an interview, A.B. was suspended for 15 days without pay. She received written notice of the suspension on February 7, though that suspension was ultimately reduced to five days without pay.
Before the Arbitrator, the union argued that the employer’s failure to serve A.B. with written notice of suspension on January 18 meant that the suspension for insubordination was void and that it was not recoverable by the employer’s subsequent attempt to serve notice three days later.
The union also argued against the discipline for the alleged bullying incident. The employer’s failure again to serve her with written notice on January 21 voided the discipline, the union said. Moreover, the January 28 letter informing A.B. of the investigation lacked the specificity required by the collective agreement to impose discipline. While the February 7 letter may have set out detailed grounds for discipline, it was issued well past the 10-day time limit set out in the collective agreement.
Attempts to serve notice thwarted
There was no employer violation of the 10-day time clock, the Arbitrator said. The union was correct that the employer was obligated to provide A.B. with written notice of her suspension when it ordered her to leave the depot on January 21. However, the employer’s attempts to provide A.B. with notice were “thwarted” by A.B.’s own actions, the Arbitrator said.
The evidence was uncontradicted that management approached A.B. three times in attempting to serve her with the suspension notice. In each case, she fled. “In these circumstances, I find the only reason [A.B.] was not given [the suspension letter] was because she deliberately conducted herself in a fashion that made it impossible, short of using physical force, for management to give the letter to her. I conclude that the Employer met its obligation to provide [A.B.] written notice at the time she was suspended and that [the collective agreement] was not violated,” the Arbitrator said.
