FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Information
Termination (non-disciplinary) - Medical incapacity - Duty to accommodate - grievor, who was employed as a Kitchen Helper for 11 years, developed an allergy to the cleaning materials which she was required to use - as a result her doctor ordered her to leave the kitchen workplace - there was no dispute that the grievor was medically incapable of performing the duties of her position as a Kitchen Helper - the grievor was unsuccessful in completing the on-the-job training program as a switchboard operator which the employer had provided in an attempt to find her a suitable alternate position - the employer then attempted to train the grievor for clerical work but again the grievor was unsuccessful - the employer terminated the grievor's employment based on her incapacity to perform the duties of her position - adjudicator concluded that employer had made a genuine effort to accommodate the grievor within her medical limitations. Grievance denied.
Decision Content
File: 166-2-28151 Public Service Staff Before the Public Service Relations Act Staff Relations Board BETWEEN NINA EDITH COLES Grievor and TREASURY BOARD (National Defence)
Employer
Before: J. Barry Turner, Board Member For the Grievor: David Landry, Public Service Alliance of Canada For the Employer: Judith Begley, Counsel Heard at Gander, Newfoundland, April 15 to 17, 1998.
Decision Page 1 DECISION Mrs. Nina Coles, a former Kitchen Helper, GS-FOS-02 classification level, 9 Wing, Department of National Defence (DND), Gander, Newfoundland, is grieving the termination of her employment. Her grievance reads: I grieve management’s decision to terminate my employment for cause for non disciplinary reasons effective 31 May 1996.
The employer’s letter of termination (Exhibit E-24) signed by Brigadier-General R.R. Henault dated 9 May 1996 reads: As you are aware, based on Lieutenant-Colonel Hartley’s letter to you dated 28 December 1995, termination of your employment for cause was recommended based on your incapacity to perform the duties of your position.
This is to advise you that I am satisfied that all reasonable effort has been attempted in order to accommodate your health-related limitations. These efforts having failed, I support Lieutenant-Colonel Hartley’s recommendation.
By authority delegated to me by the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence, you are hereby notified that your employment in the Public Service will be terminated for cause effective 31 May 1996.
You are further advised that you have the right to grieve my decision within 25 days from the date of receipt of this letter.
Mrs. Coles is requesting the following corrective action: 1. Reinstatement with full pay and benefits. 2. Reimbursement of pay and benefits for lost time beginning June 1990. 3. Compensation equal to or greater than CRP [Civilian Reduction Program] package. 4. Any other redress as may be granted.
The representative for the bargaining agent advised me at the end of his argument that requested corrective action numbers two and three above were to be withdrawn. I agreed.
The hearing lasted two and one-half days with six witnesses testifying and thirty-four exhibits were submitted into evidence.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 2 Summary of Evidence 1. Mary Bale, retired since 1997, was the grievor’s former supervisor; she described the main duties of a GS-FOS-02, Kitchen Helper as: cleaning the kitchen floors two to three times daily, cleaning the food line, stripping the kitchen floor once or twice a month with ammonia cleaners, cleaning pots in the pot room with detergents, cleaning ovens, tables, silverware, walls and counters sometimes with chlorine bleach. She said the grievor developed a stuffy head and headaches as a result of a reaction to something in the kitchen, and was eventually ordered by her doctor to leave the kitchen workplace in February 1991. The grievor left, came back to work on salads only, but was still in contact with various cleansing materials.
During cross-examination, Mrs. Bale testified that after leaving work in 1991, Mrs. Coles came back to work on salads in February 1993 but that she also had to perform other kitchen duties. The witness was not aware of any special conditions set for the grievor when Mrs. Coles returned.
2. Stephen Lane spent over twenty-three years at the Gander DND base. When he retired almost three years ago, he was the Office Manager of the Civilian Personnel Office (CPO). He first became aware of the grievor’s health problems around 1992.
Mr. Lane testified that, after the grievor left the kitchen, she was given training on the Gander base switchboard between August and October 1992 but did not qualify. Her switchboard training was sanctioned by the Workers’ Compensation Commission (WCC), Gander.
Mr. Lane’s second involvement in the grievor’s training occurred when she was sent to the CPO to try clerical work. Mrs. Coles was given some orientation for clerical training in the CPO by Mrs. Reni Gauthier, the Civilian Personnel Officer, and Paula Gillingham, a term clerk in the CPO. The orientation included mail sorting, posting of leave, typing, filing, photocopying and computer use.
Mr. Lane stated that the grievor was given daily assigned tasks that he reviewed at the end of some days on an evaluation form. He added Mrs. Coles was successful to some extent but made mistakes in filing, typing, and photocopying which he discussed with her. Overall she was not successful in the clerical training. Mr. Lane
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 3 said the CPO needed close to one hundred percent work accuracy or the civilian employees would complain. He added Mrs. Coles’ attitude was good, but she simply could not understand some work functions or some military terminology on the phone, and was sometimes shown three times how to do a task on the typewriter or computer.
Mr. Lane felt the efforts to train the grievor in the CPO were genuine. He could not see how the employer could have done more for her.
During cross-examination, Mr. Lane testified the grievor told him some operators were not fair with her and were rude to her during her switchboard training since they were term employees and they resented training Mrs. Coles who could have conceivably taken one of their jobs. Mr. Lane believed Mrs. Coles came to the CPO for twenty-five days training in 1994. He identified a letter from Major Rogers (Exhibit G-1) sent to the grievor on 17 October 1994 to this effect. Mr. Lane was only aware that efforts to train the grievor at the switchboard had failed. He had also heard “through the grapevine” that Mrs. Coles had worked in the Supply (stores) area and at the Fire hall.
The witness reiterated that a training plan had been prepared for the grievor in the CPO and that an evaluation was done. He did not have a copy of the evaluation. Mr. Lane testified the grievor told him Paula Gillingham had not treated her properly. Mr. Lane was the supervisor of Mrs. Coles’ training, but Mrs. Reni Gauthier was responsible to see that it was done.
Mr. Lane identified the CPO training evaluation of the grievor that he signed for the period 11 October to 25 November 1994 (Exhibit G-2). He wrote it based on her daily evaluations and concluded that the grievor was not suitable for clerical duties in the CPO. He did not base his conclusion on any previous training the grievor had received, and recognized the fact that Mrs. Coles did not have a clerical background and could not pick up the required skills quickly. Mr. Lane admitted that he did not have a hands on relationship with Mrs. Coles during her training and that he “sometimes saw mistakes in the files but her filing was basically satisfactory.”
During re-examination, Mr. Lane felt Ms. Gillingham did her best to train the grievor, and that, whatever misunderstandings there were between the two of them,
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 4 nothing inappropriate took place between them. Mr. Lane concluded that he had a good sense of Mrs. Coles’ progress during her CPO training period. This is what formed the basis for his conclusion that she was not suitable for clerical duties.
3. Reni Gauthier was the Base Civilian Personnel Officer (BCPO) from July 1993 until March 1996. Mrs. Gauthier went over the grievor’s file when she started at BCPO, and learned that Mrs. Coles had had reactions to solvents and chemicals in the kitchen where she had worked. Ms. Gauthier identified a series of letters (Exhibits E-1 to E-10) from the grievor’s doctor, from DND, and from Health and Welfare Canada. that all dealt with the grievor’s health problems and work as a kitchen helper.
Exhibit E-10 dated December 20, 1993 from Dr. LeFeuvre finally declared the grievor permanently unfit to work in the mess kitchen in Gander.
At this point in the grievor’s career, Mrs. Gauthier testified that she spoke with Mrs. Healy (formerly Lewis) at the WCC. They decided it would be most appropriate to give the grievor one-on-one on the job training after Mrs. Coles was given a psychology assessment and was written to by Mrs. Lewis, Rehabilitation Counsellor, WCC (Exhibit E-11).
The grievor was unsuccessful in completing the on the job training program as a switchboard operator as Mrs. Healy described in a letter to Mrs. Gauthier on January 11, 1994 (Exhibit E-12).
Mrs. Gauthier testified that after a number of meetings to discuss what to do with the grievor, meetings that her bargaining agent representative Mr. Dave Harvey attended, it was decided to send Mrs. Coles to the Centrac Training College for five weeks of clerical training paid for by WCC (Exhibit E-13 and E-14) followed by three months of on-the-job training at the Gander military base. The grievor in fact spent seven weeks at Centrac. Mrs. Gauthier would not have agreed to this idea if she did not think it was a sincere attempt to retrain the grievor, and if she felt Mrs. Coles would not have been successful. The grievor was successful at Centrac (Exhibit E-15), and was then placed on the base in the Supply (stores) area and assessed in this work by Sheila Winsor (Exhibit E-16, undated), reviewed by a Captain Bard and signed by the grievor. Mrs. Gauthier felt this assessment was fairly positive.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 5 Witness Gauthier identified a performance assessment of the grievor while at the Fire hall for September 1994 signed by the grievor and reviewed by Captain Conway but with no name as author (Exhibit E-17) and was also undated. The Fire hall assessment was not positive, but since the employer felt the grievor had not been given the proper training plan and feedback in writing at Supply and at the Fire hall, it decided after reviewing Mrs. Coles’ progress to date (Exhibit E-18, dated October 4, 1994) that a meeting was necessary between the bargaining agent and management to decide what further efforts could be made in order to best realize Mrs. Coles’ need to be employed, either in an indeterminate position or as a term employee.
Mrs. Gauthier testified it was decided Mrs. Coles would work at the BCPO starting on October 11, 1994 for a twenty-five day clerical on-the-job training period and that this would be the last attempt to train the grievor for work on the base. Mrs. Gauthier devised a training plan with daily goals with Lt. Gary Ouellette. She also spoke with Paula Gillingham, a clerk on term in the BCPO, who would help train Mrs. Coles for what could have ultimately been the end of Ms. Gillingham’s work if Mrs. Coles had been successful. Mrs. Gauthier said she spoke more than once with Ms. Gillingham who was not “excited at the prospects of training Mrs. Coles” but would not let this affect Ms. Gillingham’s work. Mrs. Gauthier saw no inappropriate behaviour by Ms. Gillingham towards the grievor. Mrs. Gauthier also spoke to the grievor about Ms. Gillingham’s role in the training.
Regarding the grievor’s overall training progress, Mrs. Gauthier said she was making some progress but did not understand chronological order, had spelling and grammatical errors, and was short on interpersonal skills. The witness said she had the impression that what Mrs. Coles really wanted was a buyout package and this affected how the grievor behaved overall. Mrs. Gauthier wrote a partial summary of the grievor’s progress dated November 15, 1994 (Exhibit E-19). The witness added that Mrs. Coles never told her she was not satisfied with Mrs. Gauthier’s explanation in Exhibit E-19.
Mrs. Gauthier expressed surprise in Exhibit E-19 that the grievor felt she was 'not suited for office work' after all the employer had done for her regarding training. The witness also agreed with Mr. Lane’s evaluation and summary in Exhibit G-2 and
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 6 added she would not have recommended Mrs. Coles for clerical training in another office. She added that if Mrs. Coles had shown significant progress in her typing, the grievor would have had a better chance of staying on the job.
Mrs. Gauthier was aware of the November 29, 1994 recommendation for release for cause written by Major Rogers (Exhibit E-20) and agreed with it. Mrs. Gauthier went on maternity leave in November 1994 and returned in April 1995 to see that Mrs. Coles’ file was still active. Mrs. Gauthier identified an October 19, 1995 letter from Lt. Col. Hartley to the grievor regarding her harassment complaint (Exhibit E-21) and a subsequent letter (Exhibit E-22) that concluded Mrs. Coles’ complaint was unfounded.
I reminded the parties that there is no issue of harassment in the grievance before me.
Even though Mrs. Gauthier left the BCPO position in March 1996, she was familiar with a letter from Mr. I. Hamelin, a Senior Staff Officer at Air Command dated 22 April 1996 (Exhibit E-23) addressed to Mr. Dave Harvey, Union of National Defence Employees (UNDE), Gander, essentially summarizing the delays regarding the grievor’s termination. Mrs. Gauthier also identified the grievor’s termination letter from her GS-FOS-02 position dated 9 May 1996 (Exhibit E-24). She added that there was nothing else the employer could do since there were no vacant positions during a downsizing period.
Mrs. Gauthier added the Civilian Reduction Program (CRP) (Exhibit E-25) was not offered to the grievor, even though Mrs. Gauthier and Mrs. Coles talked about it, since the grievor was not declared surplus. Even though Mrs. Coles was put on the substitute/alternate list, she could not be accommodated. Mrs. Gauthier added the application of the CRP to Mrs. Coles would have had to have a financial benefit to the Department. In Mrs. Coles’ case, it could not since her position in the kitchen was still needed. Even though Mrs. Coles was on leave of absence without pay, she was not scheduled to return to work by her doctor (Exhibit E-10).
During cross-examination, Mrs. Gauthier identified an undated letter sent by Sheila Graham, A/BCP to the grievor probably in July 1992 (Exhibit G-3) before Mrs. Gauthier arrived in the BCPO. This letter explains the retraining exercise for the
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 7 grievor as a switchboard operator. Mrs. Gauthier was told at some point by Mr. Lane that this training was not successful.
Mrs. Gauthier confirmed Exhibit E-7 a letter dated November 22, 1993 where Dr. LeFeuvre said the grievor could return to kitchen work since some of the chemicals/solvents/detergents that were used there had been changed. The grievor worked in the kitchen until December 12, 1993 but had to leave again because of allergies and was ordered by Dr. LeFeuvre not ever to return (Exhibit E-10). Mrs. Gauthier reiterated that several meetings were held with management, the bargaining agent, and the grievor to try to determine what opportunities and/or training would be best for the grievor. After passing the Centrac College training, the grievor was given three months on-the-job training. If this training had been successful, Mrs. Coles was to have been placed in a term position at the CR-02 level (Exhibit E-13, page 2).
Mrs. Gauthier said she met with Captain Gushue, the Administration Officer during the grievor’s three months training period. Captain Gushue wanted written follow-up to the training as he wrote on a minute sheet Mrs. Gauthier identified as Exhibit G-4. She said the comment on Exhibit G-4 near the bottom by the Wing Commander to “obvious blunder” refers to the overall training situation at the Supply/Fire hall and not to Mrs. Coles.
Regarding Exhibit E-17, the grievor’s performance assessment at the Fire hall, Mrs. Gauthier did not know who had drafted it, nor was she involved in any way with the Fire hall situation. Mrs. Gauthier pointed out, however, that the grievor had signed Exhibit E-17; if Mrs. Coles knew that the assessment was not true, the witness wondered why she would have signed it. With respect to Exhibit E-18, the recap and update of Mrs. Coles’ retraining program, Mrs. Gauthier testified that a final retraining plan was going to be drafted for the grievor that she hoped would be successful in the CPO’s office thereby assuring Mrs. Gauthier of an indeterminate position that would eliminate the annual budget fight for positions. Mrs. Gauthier stated that the employer had an obligation to make a good honest effort to train and eventually place Mrs. Coles, even though Mrs. Gauthier had concerns about her capabilities.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 8 Mrs. Gauthier reiterated that she had spoken with Paula Gillingham who felt uncomfortable about the fact that she was going to have to train Mrs. Coles. Mrs. Gauthier said that Mrs. Gillingham was not in a conflict of interest situation because she did not have full responsibility for training Mrs. Coles. The witness added, however, it was not an ideal situation, since at the end of the twenty-five day training period, only one person would have become an indeterminate employee. Mrs. Gauthier said she had her baby on November 17, 1994 but still had some input into the grievor’s training even though she had turned it over to Mr. Lane. Mrs. Gauthier identified a number of dates in October and November when she had in fact reviewed the training plan and results with the grievor. With respect to Exhibit E-19, Mrs. Gauthier’s letter to the grievor dated November 15, 1994, Mrs. Gauthier admitted that it was very negative but that she wanted to state the facts as she saw them at the time. She was concerned because of the grievor’s attitude that she was not making her best efforts to be successful during her training. Mrs. Gauthier added that this letter was not written to discourage Mrs. Coles.
Regarding the CRP, Mrs. Gauthier recalled discussing this verbally with the grievor in the fall of 1994 as to whether or not she wanted to be considered as a substitute in this program. The witness added any efforts to include the grievor in the CRP fell through.
I reminded the parties at this point that I was not being asked to consider whether the CRP program should or should not have been awarded to Mrs. Coles since the issue before me in the grievance relates to her termination for cause only. I reminded the parties that reference by either side to the CRP was not relevant and that it was clouding the real issue before me regarding the grievor’s termination.
Mr. Landry argued in fact that I should deal with all of the issues before me; that is, the harassment of the grievor and discrimination against her during her training; the discussions to grant her CRP; and lastly, her termination. I disagreed.
Mrs. Begley reminded me that the accommodation requirements the employer must meet are to allow an employee to continue employment not to grant her a package to leave the work place through a special government program, but to retrain her to keep her on the job. At this point in the hearing, Mr. Landry asked for an
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 9 adjournment pending my decision in writing with respect to discussions surrounding the offer or decline of the CRP to Mrs. Coles. Mrs. Begley strongly opposed such an adjournment request. I denied Mr. Landry’s request and indicated to him that any references to the CRP would be reflected in my decision, if necessary.
Mr. Landry reminded Mrs. Gauthier that the grievor passed her typing test while at the Centrac College (Exhibit E-15) but that she did not meet the requirements for the Civilian Personnel Training evaluation (Exhibit G-2). Mrs. Gauthier explained that the position the grievor was being considered for required forty words per minute of typing with an error of 5% or less as the standard for clerical positions. The grievor did not meet those requirements. Mrs. Gauthier added that the grievor had to practice her typing skills to get her speed up during the twenty five days she was in the CPO training program.
With respect to Exhibit G-2, Mr. Landry questioned what Mr. Lane’s reference on page 2 under 'receptionist' concerning confidentiality was all about. Witness Gauthier clarified that there was no release by the grievor of any confidential information but that she had read certain information that she should not have read that was confidential.
Mrs. Gauthier testified that she did not consider the grievor for any other positions after the witness returned from her maternity leave in April 1995 since the processing of her release for cause had already begun in the fall of 1994. She added there was nothing else available for the grievor at the Gander military base. Mrs. Gauthier left CFB Gander in March of 1996.
During re-examination by counsel for the employer, Mrs. Gauthier testified that the grievor had not made sufficient progress at the Supply and Fire hall to be appointed to a position, and that if Mrs. Coles had not gone to the CPO, she would have been put on leave without pay. Mrs. Gauthier reiterated that the bargaining agent had been consulted throughout the process to find options for Mrs. Coles. She added that during the five-week training period in the CPO with Paula Gillingham, as far as Mrs. Gauthier could recall, there were only two incidents that took place between Mrs. Coles and Paula Gillingham.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 10 4. Noel Rideout has been the Deputy Fire Chief at CFB Gander for twenty years. Mr. Rideout testified that the grievor came to work at the Fire hall in 1994. He was unaware that she was coming. She explained to him what she was supposed to do, but he had no clerical skills since he was a firefighter who did not do computer or clerical work. He said he could not type at all and did not supervise Mrs. Coles since he was out and around the base a lot. He helped her when she asked for help. He gave her some clerical work and, to his knowledge, a Sergeant Price who was in the Fire hall at the time, did not give her any clerical work that he knew of. Mr. Rideout did not evaluate the grievor’s work performance. He had no problems with her and was not aware of any particular problems that Sergeant Price may have had with her.
During cross-examination, Mr. Rideout said that he had actually heard through the grapevine that Mrs. Coles was coming to the Fire hall. Mr. Rideout added the grievor had done some filing work for him, and that he had tried to find an electric typewriter for her. Mr. Rideout admitted Sergeant Price had had some problems with tasks assigned to the grievor. He could not be sure who wrote Exhibit E-17, that is the evaluation of the grievor at the Fire hall, but after he read it, he admitted that it seemed to be the way Sergeant Price used to write things.
During re-examination, Mr. Rideout identified a handwritten memorandum to Walter Haines, Vice-President of UNDE, Gander, from Sergeant Price dated July 26, 1996 responding to some questions about the grievor’s training at the Fire hall in September of 1994 (Exhibit G-5).
Mrs. Begley objected to the introduction of Exhibit G-5 based on the fact that it was total hearsay and that the content did not arise from her cross-examination. Mr. Landry agreed that this was in fact hearsay. I allowed the entry and indicated that I would weigh it accordingly. Mrs. Begley pointed out that number two on the back page of Exhibit G-5 contradicts what Mr. Rideout said in examination with respect to Sergeant Price having had some problems with the grievor. Number two reads: 2. The enclosed training assessment was not written by me. I thought Mrs. Coles was a nice individual. She completed the assignments that I gave her and I had no problem receiving them on time.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 11 When asked by Mr. Landry if the grievor had a problem with the electric typewriter, Mr. Rideout said: “Yes she had a problem and I could not help her with it.” Mr. Rideout did not believe Sergeant Price could help her either.
5. Walter Haines has worked at CFB Gander for six years as a driver. Mr. Haines was the Vice-President of UNDE for a time in 1996. He was asked to look into Mrs. Coles’ case in May of 1996 by Mrs. Snow who at the time was the UNDE President.
Counsel for the employer objected to this line of questioning since Mr. Haines arrived on the scene in May of 1996 after the grievor had been terminated. She reminded me that the grievor had in fact been recommended for release in November of 1994. Mrs. Begley argued what Mr. Haines could offer would be very limited at best since Mr. Haines had no first hand knowledge leading up to the termination. She argued at best Mr. Haines could only offer an opinion which is precisely what I as the adjudicator am being asked to do.
Mr. Haines identified Exhibit G-5 that was sent to him by Sergeant Price after Mr. Haines had spoken to the Sergeant regarding some specific questions that he had concerning Mrs. Coles. Mr. Haines noted that the training assessment of the grievor at the Fire hall was not written by Sergeant Price as is indicated in Exhibit G-5. Mr. Haines said he wrote to Sergeant Price on July 19, 1996 to ask him to respond with Exhibit G-5. Mr. Haines identified as Exhibit G-6 the questions he sent to Sergeant Price on July 19, 1996.
Mr. Haines identified as Exhibit G-7 an excerpt from the Occupational Health and Safety chapter of a Treasury Board Manual that applied in particular to persons with disabilities. Mrs. Begley objected again saying that this was not the correct reference in the issue before me. I agreed. I indicated that I would accept Exhibit G-7 only as being identified by Mr. Haines but that it was more properly suited to argument since I felt Mr. Haines could only add or subtract acceptable information up to the May 9, 1996 letter of termination.
During cross-examination, Mr. Haines admitted that he had never shown Exhibit G-5, the memorandum from Sergeant Price to himself dated July 26, 1996 to the employer before today. When asked by counsel for the employer if he left Sergeant Price the impression that the grievor’s termination was for disciplinary
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 12 reasons, Mr. Haines responded: “No.” Mr. Haines could not recall if he told Sergeant Price that he was talking to others regarding the grievor. When asked if he left Sergeant Price with the impression that Sergeant Price’s responses would determine whether or not Mrs. Coles would be fired, Mr. Haines responded: “No, I did not. I only presented to him what was in my letter.” (Exhibit G-6).
During re-examination, Mr. Haines testified that he attended the grievance hearing in Ottawa for the grievor.
6. Nina Coles worked at CFB Gander in the kitchen for eleven years. In 1991 she began to develop a reaction to certain chemicals in the kitchen that necessitated her leaving work for a period of time. The grievor collected Unemployment Insurance and Workers’ Compensation for most of 1991. Mrs. Coles testified that from August to October 1992 she was trained during a twelve week period on the base switchboard. Her supervisor was a Mr. Rod MacDonald. Mrs. Coles admitted that her training at the switchboard was not successful.
I noted at this point during the hearing after some discussion with the parties, that even though the grievor had failed at the switchboard training, this was not the basis for her termination. The failure of her clerical training at the CPO that ended in her termination is the main issue before me.
Mrs. Coles identified as Exhibit G-8 a progress report written by Sergeant Saulnier for the period that she was training on the switchboard She acknowledged that it concluded she should undertake educational upgrading in order to improve her literacy skills. She never received educational upgrading. Mrs. Coles said that in January of 1993 she went back to the kitchen to work on salads, but after being there for a short period of time, her allergies returned since she had to still use detergents and other solvents. Mrs. Coles testified there was no job in the kitchen that would not bring her in contact with solvents and detergents. She added that she could not have been a waitress in the kitchen either since she would still be doing kitchen work. Mrs. Coles received Exhibit E-8 declaring her unfit for the position of Kitchen Helper by Health and Welfare Canada after she had left the kitchen in December 1993. Mrs. Coles could not remember seeing Exhibit E-9 where Mrs. Gauthier indicated in December of 1993 that if she is not capable of performing
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 13 her duties, there may be no alternative but to seek termination of her employment for non-disciplinary reasons.
With respect to Exhibit E-11, the grievor recalled seeing a psychologist, Ms. Bouzane, but she could not remember getting a copy of Ms. Bouzane’s assessment report. Mrs. Coles testified that she in fact did a job search looking for employment within Gander but was unsuccessful. She received a couple of interviews for jobs she applied for on the base.
Mrs. Coles testified that, after she was successful in the Centrac College training program, she went to work at the Supply (stores) on the base with a Sheila Winsor. The grievor added that no training was set up for her. There was no chair for her even to sit on. It took her two weeks to get one. She said she did mail, filing, took messages, did photocopying, did a little bit of typing and did some forms on the computer. She added Ms. Winsor did not have much time for her and did not really teach her anything. Mrs. Coles concluded she did not learn very much while at Supply and that she had no time to practice typing. In the absence of Ms. Winsor one week, she was assigned some computer work that she completed. The grievor identified Exhibit E-16, the assessment by Sheila Winsor of the grievor’s time at Supply. Mrs. Coles had in fact signed it.
Mrs. Coles testified she was then told to go and work in the Fire hall in September of 1994 for a one-month period. She had no idea why she was going there. She added that she was given an electric typewriter in the Fire hall which she found hard to use, but she did some work on it for Sergeant Price. She added no one in the Fire hall attempted to teach her anything and that she had no instructor while she was there to work on the computer that was in the back room. She said she was very bored during this period, had very little to do, and therefore learned nothing. Mrs. Coles confirmed in Exhibit G-4 that since there was no training plan for her at the Fire hall, she could not have learned very much while she was there. With respect to Exhibit E-17, her performance at the Fire hall assessment, Mrs. Coles could not say if that was her signature on it since it did not look like it was her capital “C” nor could she recall signing it. She added no one ever told her she had failed her work at the Fire hall, and that the first time she saw the assessment (Exhibit E-17) was after she was terminated. Mr. Haines showed it to her.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 14 When asked if she recalled attending a meeting on October 11, 1994 as is indicated in Exhibit G-1, Mrs. Coles responded: “No.” She added when she went to the CPO she did not know why she was going there. Mrs. Coles agreed that she had signed Exhibit G-1 on October 17 when she had already been working for a short period of time at the CPO. When asked if anyone told her she may be terminated if her work was not successful, the grievor responded: “No. It was only written on the back of Exhibit G-1.”
Mrs. Coles testified she never attended a meeting that was held to discuss whether she would go to the CPO or not. She added during the last twenty five days of her training at the CPO she did some typing, some filing and some mail sorting. Paula Gillingham, a term clerk who worked in the office gave her some things to do and corrected her mistakes but was not very pleasant towards her. When Mrs. Coles first went to the CPO she had no chair and no table to work at. She could only use the typewriter or the computer when Paula Gillingham was away from her desk. Overall, Mrs. Coles said she did not get the proper training in the CPO and that she had some conflicts with Paula Gillingham, one in particular with respect to the opening of confidential mail.
Mrs. Coles added that when asked if she was interested in the CRP she told Reni Gauthier that she wanted it. Mrs. Begley objected to the CRP reference.
When asked in reference to Exhibit E-19, the letter from Mrs. Gauthier, if the grievor could recall making a statement that she was not suited for office work, Mrs. Coles responded: “Maybe I did, maybe I didn’t. I don’t remember.” She could not remember when she got Exhibit E-19 or whether there was a meeting to discuss it with Mrs. Gauthier.
With respect to Exhibit G-2, the training evaluation by Mr. Lane, Mrs. Coles testified that she never received this, nor did she discuss the evaluation with anyone. She did recall being given a typing test by the Staffing Assistant in the CPO and that she saw the results of this test. She testified that she had done better at her Centrac clerical testing than at the CPO because she had done little typing in the last few months before the CPO test and was rusty. With respect to wordprocessing at the CPO, Mrs. Coles testified that she did not have a computer to practice on, had no
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 15 password, did not have her own desk, and did not have her own phone. Mrs. Coles could not recall a meeting on November 25, 1994 referred to in Exhibit E-20, nor could she recall leaving the CPO that day. Mrs. Coles added: “It has been a long time and I have been through a lot.” She added that between November 25, 1994 and the date of her termination letter, May 9, 1996, she was not given any further training, nor did she have any other meetings with the employer. She added that she did not believe every reasonable effort had been made to attempt to accommodate her and she was not trained properly. She felt she could have been sent back to school but this was not approved by the WCC.
During cross-examination, when asked if during her period at the Supply section Mrs. Coles asked for a chair, she responded: “I don’t recall.” When asked if she looked for a chair, Mrs. Coles said “no” but the employer finally got her one even though there was no room for it. When asked if she requested a computer when she was at Supply in order to practice, Mrs. Coles responded: “No I did not.” When asked if she told her supervisor at Supply that she was not learning anything, Mrs. Coles responded: “No.” The grievor added that during her two months at stores she said nothing because she was not allowed to say a word and did not like complaining.
During her period at the Fire hall, Mrs. Coles said that the typewriter there was a different one from the one she had used at Centrac, and that she could not figure out how to use it effectively but did not ask for help with it either. When asked if during her boring work time at the Fire hall she could have used some of that time to practice typing, Mrs. Coles responded that there was no one there to guide her; she had little to type; the typewriter was not working properly but she asked no one for assistance. Mrs. Coles expressed her concerns to Sergeant Price in the Fire hall that she was not learning anything, but did not discuss it with her bargaining agent representative. The grievor added that she had in fact signed the assessment of her period at the Supply (Exhibit E-16) but she did not think that the signature on Exhibit E-17, her performance at the Fire hall, was her signature because her “C” was not written the way she normally writes it.
The grievor could also not recall if her bargaining agent representative ever told her what was discussed at meetings he attended with management regarding her work at the Fire hall and efforts leading up to sending her to the CPO. Her bargaining agent
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 16 representative never informed her about the CPO possibility. Even though the grievor said she signed the retraining plan progress report, on October 17, 1994 (Exhibit G-1), she could not remember being at the progress review meeting that Exhibit G-1 says she attended on October 11, 1994. Mrs. Coles did not object to going to the CPO office because she said she had to go and that she had to listen to her bosses.
With respect to her time at the CPO, when asked if she was given tasks in the morning and had them reviewed in the afternoon by Reni Gauthier or Steven Lane, Mrs. Coles could not remember such meetings. In fact, she said: “It wasn’t done since Mrs. Gauthier wasn’t there half the time.” When asked by counsel for the employer if she did not meet with them most days, Mrs. Coles changed her response and said: “Yes, some days and other days it was not done.” With respect to a specific question regarding setting up margins on her typewriter while at the CPO, Mrs. Coles admitted that she could not catch on to how to do that, even though she had been trained at Centrac in typewriter work. Mrs. Coles added that Paula Gillingham would pass on negative information to Mrs. Gauthier because Mrs. Gillingham wanted to get something on her since Mrs. Gillingham was only a term employee. When asked if she went to Mrs. Gauthier to tell her that she was not learning anything, Mrs. Coles responded: “No.” She added that, even though she needed practice time, there was no where to practice. Mrs. Coles said she got a copy of Exhibit E-19 with the reference that she was “not suited for office work”; when asked if she objected to that statement in Mrs. Gauthier’s letter, the grievor responded: “No, I did not object.”
During re-examination, Mrs. Coles said that when she finally got a chair in Supply, because of the layout of the office area, she was not able to see the computer screen from where she was sitting on her chair. When asked to clarify what took place during the review of her work at the CPO, Mrs. Coles added: “Maybe Steve Lane and I reviewed my work a few days and then I signed some reviews.” The grievor then added that she told Reni Gauthier she was unhappy with her work CPO situation and concluded from that that Mrs. Gauthier must have known she was uncomfortable there.
At this point in the hearing Mrs. Begley decided to recall witness Reni Gauthier.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 17 Mr. Landry objected arguing that the employer was attempting to split its case. Mrs. Begley argued that the grievor said in her testimony that a number of meetings did not take place, nor could she recall reviews of her daily work schedule. Mrs. Begley simply wanted to clarify for the record that numerous reviews took place with the grievor on almost a daily basis in meetings with either Mrs. Gauthier or Mr. Lane. I allowed the recall of Mrs. Gauthier and the entry of Exhibit E-26 indicating notes and comments regarding various work days of the grievor while she was at the CPO.
When asked by Mrs. Begley if Exhibit E-26 was a review of the training plan that the witness had referred to in her earlier testimony, Mrs. Gauthier responded: “Yes.” When asked if the initials “R.G.” on various work days reflected her name, Mrs. Gauthier responded: “Yes, these are my initials and the grievor had initialed “N.C.” under the signature column on Exhibit E-26.”
During cross-examination by Mr. Landry, Mrs. Gauthier said that she had written a number of comments for a number of days in question in Exhibit E-26. Mrs. Gauthier also agreed that her initials appeared for the last time on the 21st of October 1994 in Exhibit E-26 but that a number of the written comments following that date were in fact written by her. She added Mr. Steven Lane reviewed the grievor’s training plan on subsequent days and initialed them as “S.L.” Mrs. Gauthier could not explain why the grievor’s initials did not appear for the dates November 10, 14, 15 and 16 on Exhibit E-26.
Mr. Landry asked therefore that these particular dates be removed from Exhibit E-26. Mrs. Begley argued since Mr. Lane testified he had made these reviews and this was never questioned at the time by Mr. Landry, these dates and the comments should remain. I indicated I would allow these dates to stay attached to Exhibit E-26 and that I would assess them accordingly since Mrs. Coles had not initialed them. Mrs. Begley reminded me that Mr. Lane’s testimony was never questioned regarding the end of the day meeting that he had with the grievor while she was at the CPO. Mrs. Begley added that the dates November 10, 14, 15 and 16 in fact substantiate Mr. Lane’s testimony that he actually reviewed work with the grievor even though the grievor’s initials are not there. Mrs. Begley argued that Exhibit E-26
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 18 has only been entered to show that reviews took place at the end of the work day with the grievor when she was at the CPO.
Argument for the Employer Mrs. Begley argued that the issue before me is termination for cause and that this decision is supported under the law. She argued the test is whether or not there was a reasonable chance for the grievor to return to work to perform her duties in the foreseeable future, and that the duty to accommodate without undue hardship to allow Mrs. Coles to return to work, recognizing her allergy disabilities, was met by the employer through its efforts to train and to reintegrate Mrs. Coles into her workplace.
Counsel referred me to: Holmes v. Canada A.G. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 251; Begley (Board file 166-2-26311); Funnell (Board file 166-2-25762); Isfeld (Board file 166-2-27680). Counsel argued that the grievor lacked the initiative to pursue the full possibilities of her retraining program. She said the matter is extremely unfortunate by all accounts, particularly since the grievor’s allergic condition excluded her from working in the kitchen. Counsel reminded me that the Gander military base was small and had gone through a downsizing exercise. The employer did all it could to accommodate the grievor. She added Mrs. Coles has limited skills with a cognitive limitation. There were not a lot of areas that she could be retrained for. The employer also had a staffing restriction not to appoint Mrs. Coles to a higher level than she was classified at. Mrs. Begley argued that after returning to the kitchen, it became clear the grievor simply could not work there any longer.
Counsel argued the employer was in agreement with the WCC that suggested the best area for her to be trained would be in the clerical area (Exhibit E-12) and that the WCC had cautioned in Exhibit E-11 against pursuing a formal education route for Mrs. Coles. Counsel reminded me the WCC felt one-on-one training could be successful. Mrs. Begley reminded me that Mrs. Gauthier contacted the Centrac College for the grievor to go there to receive five weeks of basic clerical training. It was in fact extended by two weeks. The grievor was successful at Centrac and now had potential for on-the-job training. Counsel reminded me that Mrs. Coles was assigned to work in the Supply (stores) and Fire hall areas, but during her training there, Mrs. Coles never told anyone that she had problems, did not complain that she was not learning or that
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 19 she had no time to practice. Counsel concluded there was a serious lack of initiative by the grievor in spite of knowing that her termination was a possibility. Counsel reminded me that the assessments of the grievor in Exhibits E-16 and E-17 were not that favourable, and that Exhibit G-5, Sergeant Price’s handwritten memorandum to Walter Haines in July of 1996, is complete hearsay that I should give no weight to, particularly since it contradicts Mrs. Coles’ testimony in any event.
Counsel reminded me that the employer continued to give the grievor the benefit of the doubt and put her in the CPO after holding meetings with her bargaining agent to determine where she might best be qualified. The grievor was given a five week additional training program that had a training plan developed for her since the employer wanted to be able to see if she was making significant progress.
Mrs. Begley argued that during the five week period, as far as Mrs. Coles could recall, there were only two incidents that took place between the grievor and Paula Gillingham. One was developing margins on the typewriter, and two, the issue of opening confidential mail. Counsel reminded me on the margin issue, Mrs. Coles did not attempt to get help to figure out how to do it. Mrs. Begley concluded that, after five weeks at the CPO, the grievor had shown little improvement as is indicated in the daily reports of her progress by Mrs. Gauthier and Mr. Lane (Exhibit E-26). Mrs. Begley in fact reminded me that the typing was worse at the CPO than the Centrac results had been. As a result, the employer concluded that Mrs. Coles would never function as a CR-02 and could not go back to the kitchen.
On the issue of credibility, counsel reminded me that Mrs. Gauthier was very forthcoming and had no direct interest in the outcome of this matter. Neither did witness Bale or witness Lane, both of whom are now retired. Counsel reminded me that Mrs. Coles had serious memory lapses. In particular, she could not remember the November 11, 1994 meeting and other meetings that preceded that, nor could she remember receiving her letter of termination and the meeting that accompanied the decision to terminate her. Counsel argued that in November 1994 a recommendation was made to terminate the grievor, but her bargaining agent had asked for more time and even went as high as the President of UNDE and to high levels in the Defence Department in Ottawa. Counsel reminded me that by May of 1996 no alternative
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 20 position had been found for the grievor since she was at all material time an FOS-02 substantive employee who was incapable of performing this work if reinstated.
Argument for the grievor Mr. Landry argued with respect to the Holmes decision (supra) that some undue hardship is in fact acceptable. He also agreed that the employer did not have to create an entirely new position for Mrs. Coles. He argued concerning the Begley decision (supra) that this was a very different situation than the one before me since Mr. Begley could not return to work and did not cooperate. Mrs. Coles did return to work but not in the kitchen. Unlike the Funnell decision (supra), Mr. Landry argued that Mrs. Coles did all she was asked to do, even going back to the kitchen twice to try to work there. Unlike the Isfeld decision (supra), Mr. Landry argued that Mrs. Coles took the initiative to be retrained whereas Isfeld (supra) took no initiative. Mr. Landry argued Mrs. Coles told the employer about her problems but no one seemed to have done anything about it even when she was at the CPO.
He reminded me that Paula Gillingham was not too excited about the prospects of training the grievor from the beginning since Mrs. Coles could have taken Mrs. Gillingham’s job from her. He argued that I cannot entertain the assessment from the Fire hall work (Exhibit E-17) because we do not know who wrote it. He also argued that the Supply assessment (Exhibit E-16) is in fact fairly positive. With respect to Exhibit G-5, Sergeant Price’s memorandum to Walter Haines in July of 1996, Mr. Landry argued that it is hearsay evidence but that it can be admitted. Mr. Landry reminded me that I have seen Mr. Haines’ correspondence on this matter with Sergeant Price in Exhibit G-6, and since Sergeant Price was not available to testify, this was the best evidence available.
Mr. Landry argued the main problem for the grievor at the CPO was that she had nowhere to practice using a typewriter or a computer. With respect to credibility, he said Mrs. Coles was at a medical centre on the base when she was called to the CPO for work. This came as a surprise to her, and was a pattern of treatment of her in terms of how she was being treated. With respect to the grievor changing her testimony, Mr. Landry argued that Mrs. Coles’ comments with respect to meetings at the end of her training days at the CPO were not intentional, just forgetful, and that in
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 21 fact when she was shown these documents in re-examination she said that sometimes she did attend meetings. Mr. Landry reminded me that in Exhibit E-26, the summary of the training plan meetings between Mrs. Gauthier and Mr. Lane, Mrs. Gauthier’s initials appear only on six occasions and Mr. Lane’s appear only for the last few days of work. The grievor did not initial from the 10th to the 25th of November. Mr. Landry added that he may have objected earlier too quickly to these lasts few pages of Exhibit E-26 when he asked them to be removed from the exhibit.
Mr. Landry reminded me the grievor passed her training period at the Centrac College, and while at Supply, she had a modest improvement. Mr. Landry argued that she was also not very closely supervised at the Fire hall or at Supply and there was no training plan for her at either location that was picked up by Captain Gushue in Exhibit G-4.
Mr. Landry reminded me the grievor had to change her career after working ten years in the base kitchen, and that someone therefore should have been assigned to continually follow up and maintain the conditions that the grievor was being trained under. For example, Mr. Landry argued the employer did not even find a chair, or a computer, or a proper typewriter for the grievor to use during her training period. This was not Mrs. Coles’ responsibility. He argued in fact in Exhibit G-4, the various minutes that were written by Captain Gushue and others, that questions were asked as to where the responsibility actually lay for the grievor’s on-the-job training. Mr. Landry argued that after three months of doing very little work with no plan and no training, Mrs. Coles was assigned twenty five days at the CPO and ended up with a recommendation for release which was totally unjustified and unfair. He argued the training period at the CPO was done in the presence of Paula Gillingham who had a conflict of interest to save her own job from Mrs. Coles. He said Mrs. Coles did complain to her employer but nothing was done about it. He argued the employer indicated it was hopeful for the grievor in her CPO training, but the November 15, 1994 letter written by Mrs. Gauthier (Exhibit E-19) was very discouraging.
Mr. Landry argued that after the Exhibit G-4 minute sheet stinging comments were reviewed, the employer tidied up its efforts to train the grievor but the office set up at the CPO was very negative. He argued in fact the grievor did not even know she was going to go to the CPO and got her letter of explanation a few days after she had
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 22 begun there. With respect to the grievor’s time at the Centrac College, Mr. Landry reminded me that she passed the tests, but then a clerical gloss was put over a fundamental problem by the employer when it argued that even though she had passed with 25 words per minute at Centrac, she now needed 40 words per minute to do the clerical job on the base. He argued Mrs. Coles needed more upgrading in her typing skills especially since she had never worked in an office before but was not given that opportunity. Mr. Landry reminded me that the testimony of Mr. Rideout and of Mrs. Coles regarding her training at the Fire hall, indicated her training there was almost negligable. He argued Exhibits G-5 and G-6 demonstrate clearly no individual was involved in the grievor’s training at the Fire hall.
Mr. Landry referred to the termination letter (Exhibit E-24) that talks about “all reasonable effort has been attempted in order to accommodate your health-related limitations”, and argued the grievor never really got a fair shake at her training on the base. He argued the only part of the training plan that the employer put its mind to was the Centrac College training and the training at the CPO.
Mr. Landry stated the only remedy he was seeking from this grievance was to have the grievor reinstated to her GS-FOS-02 position.
Mr. Landry referred me to: Dekoning (Board files 166-2-22971 and 149-2-129); Re Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Canada Post Corporation (Wytrykush - 860-88-00018, 34 et 37) (1991) (unreported);
Standard Paper Box, Division of SPB Canada Inc. and IWA - Canada, Local 1-92 (1995) (unreported);
Calgary District Hospital Group and United Nurses of Alberta, Local 121-R, Grievance of Ms. Marie Roy (1994) (unreported);
Re Mount Sinai Hospital and O.N.A. (1996), 54 L.A.C. (4th); Breault (Board file 166-2-24186); C.S.R. De Chambly v. Bergevin [1994] 2 S.C.R. 525.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 23 During rebuttal argument, counsel for the employer reminded me that the Supreme Court of Canada in the Holmes v. Canada A.G. decision (supra) said that some hardship is in fact allowable. Counsel argued however that undue hardship is in fact a moot point. She argued there was nothing else that could be done for Mrs. Coles since the employer attempted to retrain her as a clerk in the only field where there was a chance of success as was recommended by the WCC instead of sending her to school. Counsel argued with respect to the Standard Paper Box decision (supra), Mrs. Coles could not have continued to work in her field of expertise in the kitchen. Mrs. Begley argued that the concept of undue hardship is not broad enough to employ someone in a job they cannot do. She reminded me with respect to Exhibit E-26, the daily summary of the grievor’s training plan at the CPO, that Mr. Lane in fact testified there were meetings on a regular basis even though Mrs. Coles had not initialed some of them. Counsel reminded me the grievor’s training at the Centrac College was paid for by the WCC and that Mrs. Gauthier had sought out the College as to how it could best help Mrs. Coles.
With respect to Exhibit G-4, that is the various notes on the minute sheet and the need to tidy up the training process for the grievor, the first minute written by Captain Gushue refers to the WCPO (which is the same as the BCPO) as going to be taking Mrs. Coles into that office for five weeks of on-the-job training before any other minute comments were made to clean up her previous training sessions.
In conclusion counsel argued that the 15 November 1994 letter from Mrs. Gauthier to the grievor (Exhibit E-19) is clear the the CPO was the only area that could have created an indeterminate position for Mrs. Coles.
Decision I am being asked to decide whether or not Mrs. Coles should be reinstated into her former substantive position GS-FOS-02 at CFB Gander. Unfortunately, I have reached the conclusion that she should not be reinstated.
I say unfortunately because what is before me is a somewhat sad situation. Mrs. Coles could not continue to work in the kitchen for medical reasons as Dr. LeFeuvre stated on December 20, 1993 in Exhibit E-10. She was also not successful in the larger picture of her retraining efforts, in cooperation with her
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 24 employer, to qualify her for a clerical position at CFB Gander in the CPO. Because of downsizing and a limited number of possibilities at the military base in the first place, options for Mrs. Coles were limited from the beginning, especially in light of the psychological assessment done by Genevieve Bouzane reported in a letter to Mrs. Gauthier dated January 11, 1994 from Mrs. Healy (Exhibit E-12). This same letter identified work in the clerical area as being suitable for Mrs. Coles.
The employer decided after consultation with the grievor’s bargaining agent to send Mrs. Coles to the Centrac Training College followed by three months of on-the-job training at CFB Gander. The grievor succeeded at Centrac and began on-the-job training in the base Supply (stores) area under the supervision of Sheila Winsor. This training proved relatively successful as Ms. Winsor wrote in Exhibit E-16. This training was followed by a period in the Fire hall that I have determined from Mr. Rideout’s testimony primarily and from Captain Gushue’s minute sheet (Exhibit G-4), was a period that was almost devoid of supervision, was sloppy and disorganized, and resulted in little learning by Mrs. Coles. I have given no weight however to Sergeant Price’s memorandum to Mr. Haines (Exhibit G-5) particularly in light of the fact that it was written in response to Mr. Haines’ questions in Exhibit G-6, written after Mrs. Coles was terminated. Similarly, since the author is unknown for the Fire hall assessment (Exhibit E-17), and since Mrs. Coles was not certain the signature on it was hers, I have given no weight to Exhibit E-17. The result of her subsequent training time at the CPO, was however, the ultimate turning point in the employer’s decision to terminate Mrs. Coles in May 1996.
Although there were some logistical problems for Mrs. Coles at the CPO and two conflicts with Paula Gillingham, the end result after close assessment by Mrs. Gauthier and Mr. Lane in Exhibits E-26 and G-2 respectively, resulted in the conclusion the grievor was not suitable for clerical duties. The grievor in fact did not deny, nor did she object to Mrs. Gauthier’s reference in Exhibit E-19, that Mrs. Coles said herself that she may not be suited for office work.
Mrs. Coles’ altering of her testimony about daily reviews of training with Mrs. Gauthier and Mr. Lane was a direct reflection of her lack of credibility as opposed to her forgetfulness as Mr. Landry would have me believe. I did not find the grievor particularly credible, especially when Mrs. Gauthier pointed out such meetings took
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision Page 25 place in Exhibit E-26 where Mrs. Coles initialed some dates where a review of training was undeniable.
As early as December 1993 in Exhibit E-9, where the possibility of termination was first referred to, Mrs. Coles could not remember this. She could not remember getting the psychological assessment referred to in Exhibit E-11. She could not remember the meeting on October 11, 1994 referred to in Exhibit G-1 that she signed on October 17, 1994 that also talked of the possibility of termination, nor could she remember a meeting referred to in Exhibit E-20 on November 25, 1994 regarding a recommendation that was being put forward to terminate the grievor for cause.
In short, Mrs. Coles’ recollection fell short on essential, fundamental events, but she could remember not having a chair or a desk to work with. I find this stretches very thinly the line of credibility that is essential to hold Mrs. Coles’ defence together.
Mrs. Coles showed little initiative to improve her needed skills from what I can conclude. Training is indeed a two way street that an employee and an employer must walk together. It also requires the proper attitude in order to be successful. I have little evidence that the grievor showed such initiative; in fact, the evidence is to the contrary by Mrs. Coles’ admission especially while at Supply and the Fire hall. If Mrs. Coles had been truly interested in practicing on a typewriter or a computer, a vital skill for a potential position as a clerk, she made little effort to do so as far as I can determine. Mrs. Coles said at times she was bored, and that her typing skill was rusty. Well she had plenty of time to practice but did not.
In conclusion, I believe the employer made a genuine effort to accommodate Mrs. Coles within her medical limitations, in light of the grievor’s psychological assessment limitations, and within its own limitations of few options available to the employer at the CFB Gander.
For all these reasons, this grievance is denied.
J. Barry Turner, Board Member OTTAWA, May 8, 1998.
Public Service Staff Relations Board