And the grievance of.constable Donald Bryce - Reclassification. Hearings in Southampton on March 22 and May 11-12, 1982

Transcription

1 OPAC Concerning an arbitration Pursuant to the Police Act, R.S.O. 1980, ch. 381 Between: SOUTHAMPTON POLICE ASSOCIATION - and - SOUTHAMPTON POLICE COMMITTEE FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON And the grievance of.constable Donald Bryce - Reclassification Hearings in Southampton on March 22 and May 11-12, 1982 Arbitrator: J.V7. Samuels For the Parties: Association E. Hafemann, Counsel D. Bryce Town R.E. Forsyth, Q.C., Counsel L. Hale, Mayor and Chairman, Police Committee

2 CONTENTS Page THE FACTS... 1 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES a. On behalf of Constable Bryce b. On behalf of the Town CONCLUSIONS LIST OF EXHIBITS... 26

3 THE FACTS Constable Donald Bryce grieves the failure of the Town of Southampton to promote him from Third to Second- Class or First-Class Constable. are as follows: The facts in this matter 1. Constable Bryce commenced duty as an auxiliary Constable with the Southampton Police Force in June On October 5, 1977, he was hired as a full-time officer. 3. He commenced duties as a Fourth-Class Constable, and in early 1978 attended the probationary course at the Ontario Police College in Aylmer. He completed the course successfully and returned to active duty. 4. During 1978, he became involved in a number of public service activities safety officer with a public school and a school for the mentally retarded, on the area youth advisory committee chaired by the judge of the family court division, active in the Block Parent program, and area chairman of the Boy Scouts. 5. On October 5, 1978, he was promoted to Third-class Constable on the joint recommendation of the Chief of Police and the Police Committee. 6. In late 1978, he attended the Ontario Police College again and successfully completed Part B of

4 2. the course for probationary constables. He completed his probationary period with the Force on April 5, On October 5, 1979, he was eligible for promotion to Second-Class Constable. The Chief of Police recommended the promotion, but this recommendation was not endorsed by the Police Committee. This decision was grieved to arbitration, and the arbitrator found in favor of the Town. Both parties agree that this previous decision is not germane to the matter before me. 8. On October 5, 1980, he was again eligible for promotion but, because the arbitration award was received around that time, nothing was done concerning the reclassification. 9. During the period October 1980 to October 1981, a number of events occurred which had a bearing on the disposition of the request for reclassification in These events are a. Constable Bryce had severe problems in his marriage commencing in mid In the evening of December 3, 1980, Constable Bryce, while off duty on holidays, was found in a local hotel room by the Chief of Police. The Constable was naked at the time and was with an exotic dancer who was performing in town. There was no suggestion whatsoever that prostitution was involved. Why, or with what

5 3. authority, the Chief entered the room was never explained. The Chief was also off duty at the time. The Chief "ordered" the Constable to leave the room and to see him in the morning. They met the next morning, by which time the incident was already known on the street. The Chief told Constable Bryce that, if the public complained, he would have to charge the Constable under the Police Act. The Constable was given three choices he could resign and get a good recommendation for a position with another force, he could be charged with discreditable conduct if a member of the public complained, or they could try to keep the incident quiet (which was already impossible in fact). Around noon, the Constable met with Constable Kloepfer, then Secretary of the Police Association, and discussed the matter. Constable Kloepfer advised against resignation. Later that day, Constable Bryce met again with the Chief, with Constable Kloepfer present, and they went over the Chief's three choices once again. Constable Bryce tendered his resignation, effective January 16, Around the middle of December, after consulting counsel, Constable Bryce attempted to withdraw his resignation but the Chief said this was

6 4. impossible because the matter was now in the Town Council's hands. The Constable attended Council and explained that he wished to withdraw the resignation. In early January, on the advice of its counsel, Council permitted Constable Bryce to withdraw his resignation. In doing so, Council requested the Constable and the Chief to stay out of the local drinking establishments (in particular the "Bucket", which is the Southampton Hotel wherein the whole incident began), and to get along better with each other. The last of this incident came in mid-1981, when the press finally published it. Stories appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and the Owen Sound Sun Times. b. Constable Bryce stayed out of the "Bucket" for six to seven months and then began drinking there again while off duty. He did visit other local bars or another local bar before this. c. On February 14, 1981, Constable Bryce was involved in a one-vehicle accident while on his way to the station for duty around 8 P.M. His truck flipped over and landed on its roof. The Constable said that the accident resulted from the plow on the front falling when its chain broke. This explanation does

7 not appear in the Motor Vehicle Accident Report. The Constable was taken to the hospital with minor injuries. No charges were ever laid. The Chief of Police and Constable F. Redfern investigated an allegation that Constable Bryce was impaired at the time, but were unable to substantiate the allegation. At most, they found that he had been at a bar until 5 P.M. At our hearing, counsel for the Town accepted in evidence unsworn statements from the owner and a waitress of the hotel, where Constable Bryce had been, that he left the hotel unimpaired. On February 16, in the evening, Constables Lein and Redfern attended at the home of Constable Bryce to get his statement about the accident. Constable Bryce gave a statement to Constable Redfern. The circumstances of this meeting are very important, because of its significance in the later discussions of the Police Committee concerning the request for reclassification. The clear evidence of all three persons there is that Constable Bryce gave his statement to Constable Redfern without hesitation, and that Constable Bryce said little or nothing of significance to Constable Lein (who was the investigating officer of the accident). It may be, as

8 Constable Lein testified, that he had agreed with Constable Redfern that Redfern would take the statement because he was the senior officer. It may be, as Constable Redfern testified, that Constable Bryce said to Redfern that he would not like to speak with Lein that night because of remarks made by Lein's wife concerning the accident. Or, it may be, as Constable Bryce testified, that he spoke cordially with both officers and gave the statement to Redfern. In any event, it is absolutely clear that at no time did Lein request a statement, nor did Constable Bryce refuse such a request, nor did Constable Bryce order or request Constable Lein to leave his property. Yet, at a meeting of the Police Committee on September 30, 1981, the Chief reported to the Committee (and this report was decisive in its deliberations, as we shall see) that he was told by Redfern that Constable Bryce refused to give a statement to Constable Lein and ordered Lein off his property. I do not know how or why the Chief came to this understanding of the events. d. During 1981, Constable Bryce applied for a volunteer position on the water rescue unit. Apparently this was hotly debated by the Town Council and caused considerable controversy.

9 7. In the end, he was refused. The primary reason seems to be the general policy that no man should serve on more than one emergency force. As a member of the Police Force, Constable Bryce must answer emergencies, and there would be a conflict if he were also on the water rescue unit. Constable Bryce does not accept this explanation and feels that he is being discriminated against. e. During this same year, he has mentioned to several persons, including Mayor Hale and Councilman Breede that he has compromising information concerning various prominent persons, including the Chief of Police and various councilmen, which he has on tape or in a separate private notebook which he keeps. 10. On a number of occasions, commencing in 1979, matters concerning Constable Bryce have appeared in the local media. He has not hesitated to speak with members of the press concerning his contract difficulties with the Town. We received no adequate evidence whatsoever of what has appeared in the media no tapes of radio reports, no newspaper clippings. Therefore I can make no judgment on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the Constable's substantive remarks.

10 Commencing in 1979, Constable Bryce has been involved with a married woman. There was no evidence concerning the reason for the breakdown of this other marriage. We do not really know whether the Constable came into the picture before or after the breakdown. We do know, however, that the Town knows all about his relationship with the woman. He has been living with her for the last nine months, and, though no divorce proceedings have been commenced to terminate either marriage, he testified that he plans to marry the woman some day. 12. In September 1980, Constable Bryce was charged under The Police Act concerning a domestic dispute in his home. The charges were dismissed. There is no significance for us in this incident. 13. All of the evidence we had at our hearing from the Chief of Police, the senior Constable of the Port Elgin Police Force (with whom there is a cooperative arrangement for assistance from Southampton) who spoke on behalf of all the members of the Port Elgin Police Association, and the Chief of the Saugeen Reserve Police Force (with whom there is also an arrangement for assistance) confirms that Constable Bryce does an excellent job in his police work. Indeed, he may be the best police officer on the Force, if one takes into account only his performance as a police officer. He does the same work as do the First-Class Constables.

11 14. From time to time, there appear to have been personal difficulties between Constable Bryce and other members of the Force. However, the evidence from the people involved indicates that this has not interfered with their police work or their cooperation as officers. On the other hand, the evidence from the members of the Police Committee seems to indicate that they were of the impression that these personal difficulties were more significant than they actually were. 15. On September 14, 1981, the Police Committee met to consider the request for reclassification of Constable Bryce. It reviewed his record with the Force, his public service, and the verbal report of the Chief of Police. The Chief indicated that the Constable's attitude had changed much for the better, and recommended his reclassification to Second-Class Constable. At the outset, only the Mayor and Reeve Fowler were present, but later they were joined by Councilman Breede, and they unanimously recommended the reclassification. At our hearing, Messrs. Fowler and Breede indicated that they agreed to this reluctantly, but it appears that this reluctance was internal and not made clear to others at this meeting. 16. Shortly thereafter, a Councilman named Knechtel raised some questions concerning Constable Bryce with the members of the Police Committee and sug-

12 10 gested that the Committee reconsider its decision. So a meeting was called for September At the meeting on September 30, Mr. Knechtel said that Constable Bryce had harrassed his (Knechtel's) wife by driving by his home, honking and waving. I must confess that I find it incredible that such action would be considered "harrassment". Mr. Knechtel also asked questions concerning the February accident, and wondered whether or not the investigation had been adequate, particularly on the matter of impairment. All the members of the Committee testified before me that they did not consider any of this to be significant, and I give them credit for this judgment. None of it is significant. I cannot see any harrassment, nor is there any real question of impairment, as I have already indicated. However, the Chief now told the members of the Committee about Constable Bryce refusing a statement to Constable Lein and ordering Constable Lein off his property. I have already indicated that the evidence is clear that this never happened. But the Chief's "information" triggered a lengthy discussion and reopening of the question of Constable Bryce's reclassification. Here it is necessary to look at the testimony of the four persons who were at the meeting to see what happened, and to learn what motivated the change of mind of each person. Because the result

13 11. of the meeting was a unanimous reversal of the decision to reclassify Constable Bryce. In the order we heard them, here is the story: a. Mayor Hale recalls the Chief now telling the members of the Committee about three matters (i) within two weeks of Council's request to Constable Bryce to stay out of local bars, Bryce was back at the "Bucket" and saying "to hell with them". (There was no evidence whatsoever that this was so, and Constable Bryce indicated otherwise (ii) at our hearing.) on the evening of the February accident, Bryce was in the Walker House and consumed five or six beers. (There is no evidence whatsoever that this was in fact the case. The Chief had conducted an investigation into the allegation of impairment, and had been unable to substantiate the allegation. The evidence at our hearing indicates that Constable Bryce was not impaired when he left the hotel. The Chief, in his testimony before us, was not sure he even mentioned this matter of drinking at the September 30 meeting. And, finally, the Mayor himself testified at our hearing that he realized this information was unsubstantiated.)

14 12. (iii) Constable Bryce refused to give Constable Lein a statement and ordered him off his property. These matters led Mr. Hale to conclude that Bryce was too immature for reclassification. In cross-examination, the Mayor testified that the refusal to speak with Constable Lein was "critical". In other testimony, the Mayor made it clear that, in his view there was no problem in Constable Bryce's approach to the media. He did refer a number of times to the Constable's domestic situation and wondered whether a man could be a good police officer in such circumstances, but he did not make any specific comment on this and gave no indication whatsoever of any particular problem in carrying out one's police duties in these circumstances. He said that the Committee was not trying to run the Constable's private life. In all, I have the distinct impression from the very full and open testimony of the Mayor (who struck me as a sincere and concerned man) that, if it were not for the business with Constable Lein, Mayor Hale would have continued in his support of the reclassification. Nothing else new to the Mayor came up on September 30 which was significant to him.

15 13. b. Reeve Ross Fowler testified that the critical matter for him was the incident with Constable Lein. He also spoke of his concern for the domestic situation of Constable Bryce, but he was absolutely clear that what changed his mind was the information concerning Constable Lein and Constable Bryce's refusal to speak with Lein. He said that the matter of Constable Bryce and the media was not a factor. He mentioned his concern about the relationship between Bryce and his fellow officers. But in all, it seems clear to me that, if it were not for the information about Lein, Reeve Fowler would have continued in his support of the reclassification. c. Chief Larry Cooper learned nothing new at the meeting on September 30. However, he was convinced by the others that the Lein incident was significant and he changed his mind on the reclassification. It is absolutely clear from his testimony that he considers Bryce to be a fine police officer, and holds nothing else against the Constable. Furthermore, he testified that, as far as he could tell, nothing other than the Lein incident was of significance to the other members of the Committee. d. Councilman Claus Breede testified that the main thing which changed his mind on September

16 14, 30 was the information about the Lein incident. It showed a lack of maturity on the part of Constable Bryce. However, he also said that he found Bryce's approach to the media inappropriate. He also told us about a meeting in his office with Bryce where Bryce came close to blackmailing him with the suggestion that he (Bryce) had information on all the members of Council. Bryce's testimony in reply does not support Mr. Breede's version of this meeting and I am inclined to accept the Constable's version. This is particularly so because no other person at the September 30 meeting recalled this matter, and I find it incredible that it would be overlooked if a suggestion was made that a police officer tried to blackmail a member of the Police Committee. I have little difficulty in finding that Mr. Breede did not raise this at the meeting of September 30, and, if he did not, it was not a very important matter to him either. And, if it was not that important to him, I wonder whether it ever happened. In short, I am content to accept that it did not happen. If it played a part in Mr. Breede's change of mind, he did not let anyone else know about it. In conclusion, the testimony of the four men indicates that the critical matter for all four

17 was the Lein incident. And it never actually occurred! Constable Bryce was in the building at the time of the meeting but was not asked to speak or come to the room. He may in fact have been told he could not attend. In any event, he was not given the opportunity to answer the allegations concerning the Lein incident. Nor were any other enquiries made concerning the incident. In my view, the first time that any member of the Committee knew the real situation was after the testimony of Constables Lein and Redfern at our hearing. 18. We heard about subsequent meetings and correspondence, but, in my view, none of this is relevant to the issues before me. All of this relates to the grievance and arbitration process itself. There was no argument made concerning my jurisdiction. 19. Finally, apparently the Town has asked the Ontario Police Commission to investigate the Force. Some work has been done by the Commission, and a meeting has been held with the Council. But, the Commission is awaiting my award before issuing its report. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES a. On behalf of Constable Bryce On behalf of Constable Bryce, Mr. Hafemann argued that the relevant terms of the Collective Agreement are:

18 16 ARTICLE III 3.01 RESERVATION OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The Association and its members recognize and acknowledge that, subject to the provisions of the Police Act and Regulations thereto, it is the exclusive function of the Council through its Police Committee to: (a) (b) (c) maintain order, discipline and efficiency; hire, discharge, direct, classify, transfer, promote, demote and suspend or otherwise discipline any member of the force, provided that a claim of discriminatory promotion, demotion or transfer or a claim that a member has been discharged or disciplined without a reasonable cause, may be the subject of a grievance and dealt with under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Police Commission, as prescribed by the Police Act; generally to supervise and administer the affairs of the Southampton Police Department. ARTICLE IV 4.01 NO DISCRIMINATION The Corporation and the Association agree there will be no discrimination, interference, restraint or coercion exercised or practised by the parties or their representatives against any member of the Police Force. ARTICLE XIV PROMOTION Each new Constable hired by the Corporation shall serve an eighteen (18) month probationary period. Each new Constable hired by the Corporation having no previous police experience, shall be hired as a probationary Constable, Fourth (4th) Class, for a period of twelve (12) months. Each new Constable hired by the Corporation with previous police experience may, upon the joint recommendation of the

19 17. Chief of Police and the Police Committee, be hired at the Class he is eligible for, and shall be subject to Section of this Article Each Constable on completion of twelve (12) months service shall be eligible to be re-classified as a Third (3rd) Class Constable upon the joint recommendation of the Chief of Police and the Police Committee of Council Each Constable on completion of twentyfour (24) months service shall be eligible to be re-classified as a Second (2nd) Class Constable upon the joint recommendation of the Chief of Police and the Police Committee of Council Each Constable on completion of thirtysix (36) months service shall be eligible to be re-classified as a First (1st) Class Constable upon the joint recommendation of the Chief of Police and the Police Committee of Council Any Constable not re-classified in accordance with Sections 14.04, and of this Article shall within Thirty (30) days after having become eligible for re-classification, receive written notice from the Chief of Police and the Police Committee of Council as to the reason (s) why he did not receive such re-classification Any Constable while serving his probationary period may be dismissed from the Police Force in accordance with the provisions of the Police Act R.S.O Chapter 351 as amended. He suggested that there has been discrimination in the treatment of Constable Bryce, because all the other members of the Force have been promoted according to the timetable set out in Article 14, or sooner. Article 3 gives management the right to promote, but not in a discriminatory fashion. As well, contrary to Article 4, there has been discrimination, coercion, and interference with Constable Bryce.

20 18 He argued that the earlier arbitration award is to be ignored and we agreed that it is not germane to these hearings. Constable Bryce is a fine police officer and his private life is of no concern, unless it affects his work as a police officer. There was no evidence that such an effect occurred. The Police Committee had no valid reason to deny the reclassification. He requested reclassification to First-Class Constable as of October In addition, he requested counsel fees because Constable Bryce is bearing the cost of this arbitration himself, though it is brought by the Association. b. On behalf of the Town On behalf of the Town, Mr. Forsyth argued that the personal lifestyle of Constable Bryce justified the decision not to reclassify, given the local community standards in a small community like Southampton. He suggested that the arbitration was unnecessary because, in its letter to Constable Bryce on November 3, 1981, the Police Committee made it clear that it would review the Constable's status when the Ontario Police Commission had completed its investigation. For this reason

21 19. there should be no counsel fees to Constable Bryce. Indeed, the Town should get counsel fees. speaks of sharing costs in section 33(2). As well, the Police Act CONCLUSIONS In my view, the basic issue is whether or not Constable Bryce's performance as a police officer justifies his reclassification. Or, put another way, whether the Town can deny the reclassification because of his conduct as a police officer. The Collective Agreement, in Article 14 ; establishes a system of promotion which contemplates reclassification unless there is some good reason to deny the reclassification. Now, what are the facts in this case. Firstly, there is no doubt whatsoever that Constable Bryce does a fine job while on duty. The question is the impact of his private life on his performance. This is a matter of contract. Constable Bryce and the Town have a legally binding contract, through the Collective Agreement (it is between "the Corporation of the Town of Southampton and the members of the Southampton Police Association"), which governs their relationship, pursuant to the Police Act. The parties must deal together according to this contract. The private life of Constable Bryce is only relevant insofar as it bears on the performance of his duties as a police officer. Let us turn to the facts concerning his private life.

22 20 He was found in a hotel room, while off duty on holidays, with a visiting exotic dancer. I cannot see how this affects his performance as a police officer. In the first place, there was no reason or justification for the interruption of his meeting with the woman. She was not engaged in prostitution. He was not on duty. Secondly, there was no evidence whatsoever that in fact there has been any problem in the performance of his duties as a result of this incident. Has anyone refused to cooperate with him in an investigation? Has anyone refused to follow a lawful order he has given because of the incident? Has anyone shown any less respect for the law or the Police Force as a result of the incident? Has anyone committed an offence because of the incident? There is simply no evidence whatsoever, nor can I imagine that there would be any, that these things have occurred. Some people may take exception to his sexual mores, but this is entirely separate and apart from his performance as a police officer. There have been cases where sexual conduct leads to the suspicion of corruption or influence on the person involved, but there is not a shred of this here, nor was it even suggested. In sum, if this incident was significant to the Committee or Council (and this was denied by most of the persons concerned who testified), then they were mistaken in considering it. He lives now with a woman who is still legally married to another man, and he is still married to another woman. Again, I have seen no evidence whatsoever to show

23 21. that this has affected his performance as a police officer. Mayor Hale wondered whether Constable Bryce could respond adequately to a domestic situation when he lives like this. With the greatest respect, I fail to see the point. Why should his living arrangements affect his response to a domestic call where a man or woman is beating up his or her spouse? And there was no evidence that any problem had occurred With respect to his attendance in local bars, there was no evidence whatsoever that he was ever drunk or disorderly, or ever impaired. He simply frequents the bars. We heard nothing about the company he keeps there. He testified that bars are a good source of information. This is probably the case. But even if they are not, what is the problem in being there? If there is a problem, it was not shown in the evidence at our hearing. There was not one word concerning his conduct in the bars, other than simply being there. There was no evidence concerning the establishments themselves, or that all who frequent the bars are considered to be bad people. More importantly, the views I have expressed about the significance of these private activities are shared by the Police Committee. At its first meeting on September 14, 1981, all of these matters were known to each member of the Committee, yet there was a unanimous decision in favor of the reclassification to Second-class Constable. Two weeks later, at the meeting on September 30, the testimony at our

24 22 hearing indicates that again these matters were not the real reason for the decision of the Committee to reverse its earlier decision. It was the Lein incident which was critical. Mr. Forsyth's argument that I should take into account the private lifestyle of Constable Bryce is not in accord with the way of thinking of the Committee when it did its decision-making. If I should not be making judgments about the community standards of a small town in which I do not live, then in this case I am content to rely on the representatives of the town and their opinion of community standards. When faced with the matter of Constable Bryce"s private life and its significance in the matter of reclassification, the Committee was unanimous in deciding that the Constable should be reclassified. And I respect them for this decision. In my view, it was correct. The fundamental reason for refusing the reclassification was the lack of maturity shown by the refusal to give a statement to Constable Lein and ordering the Constable off the property. Once it is shown that this incident did not in fact take place, we are left with no good reason to deny the reclassification, even within the parameters established by the Committee itself. The question now is the appropriate remedy. Mr. Hafemann has asked for a reclassification to First-Class Constable. If Constable Bryce had followed the career path contemplated in the Collective Agreement, he would have

25 23 reached the rank of First-Class Constable by October 5, He has always been a good police officer in the performance of his duties. In my view, there is no reason to deny him the rank now. I order that he be reclassified to First-Class Constable. This is not the case of missing a rank and jumping into First-Class Constable. We are dealing instead with granting a rank long-earned already according to the Collective Agreement. Secondly, Mr. Hafemann asked that the reclassification be retroactive to October In my view, I have no jurisdiction to do this. The day of decision for 1980 passed by with no decision taken, and no grievance by the grievor. His grievance relates to the decisions taken concerning a promotion in 1981, and his request for arbitration relates to the same matter. My jurisdiction is to determine the dispute raised by the grievance. Therefore, I order that the reclassification take effect on October 5, I reserve my jurisdiction to deal with the matter of retroactive compensation if the parties are unable to agree on this themselves. Finally, Mr. Hafemann asked that I award counsel fees to Constable Bryce, because he is bearing the costs of this matter himself and the action was necessary because of the fault of the Police Committee and Town Council. It is

26 24. with the greatest reluctance that I have come to the conclusion that I have no authority to grant this request. My authority comes from the Collective Agreement and the Police Act. The Collective Agreement provides in Article 5.02(c) that this arbitration shall be in accordance with the Police Act. The Act provides in section 33(2) that the costs of the arbitration shall be shared. This means that each party bears his own counsel fees, and the parties share equally in the fees of the arbitrator and other incidental costs. The legislation makes it clear that costs do not follow the award, and there is no room for the arbitrator to vary the legislative prescription. Having said this, I must express my sympathy with the position taken by Mr. Hafemann. In my view, the proceedings on the evening of September 30, 1981, leave a great deal to be desired. At the very least, Constable Bryce should have been asked to respond to the allegation (for that is all that it was) that he failed to give a statement to Constable Lein and threw the Constable off his property. This would have alerted the Committee to the possibility that the event did not take place. Constables Lein and Redfern could have been consulted and the Committee would have learned the whole story. Instead, they relied on hearsay (no better example of the reason for the rule could be given than the way in which that meeting was conducted) and the Constable was forced through a three-day hearing to prove a simple point. Even though I have ordered a promotion to First-Class rather than Second-Class Constable (which is more than was agreed by the Committee on September

27 25 14, 1981), in these circumstances, while I have come to the conclusion that I lack the authority to order the Town to pay the Constable's reasonable counsel fees, I would urge the Council to consider paying these fees in order to right a substantial wrong that I am powerless to remedy. At the hearing I was impressed by the general wish of the Committee, and in particular of Mayor Hale, to be fair. A decision was wrongly taken. Anyone can make an error. Now, fairness demands that the Constable be made whole, otherwise he will suffer significantly as a result of the error. I will close by expressing my appreciation to the way in which the evidence and arguments were presented by both counsel. This was not always an easy matter to conduct, but their generous cooperation made the hearings as smooth as possible. As well, I did appreciate the warm hospitality extended to me by all of the Southamptoners with whom I had the pleasure to come in contact over the three days in the Town. ictt Done at London, Ontario, this { { day of May, Samuels, Arbitrator

28 26 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Collective Agreement between the Parties 2. Record of Performance at Ontario Police College, D.A. Bryce 3. Letter, November 3, 1981, to Bryce 4. Letter, November 9, 1981, to Chief of Police 5. Letter, November 9, 1981, to Corporation of the Town of Southampton 6. Letter, November 12, 1981, to Bryce 7. Letter, November 16, 1981, to Chief of Police 8. Letter, November 16, 1981, to Corporation of the Town of Southampton 9. Letter, January 12, 1982, to Police Committee 10. Request for Appointment of an Arbitrator 11. Extract from Judge Mackenzie's judgment 12. Letter from Port Elgin Police Association 13. Minutes of Police Committee Meeting, September 14, Minutes of Police Committee Meeting, September 30, Letter from Knechtel, September 29, Minutes of Police Committee, November 19, Letter from Hale, January 6, Letter from Bryce, January 8, Motor Vehicle Accident Report 20. Statement of R. Mahon 21. Statement of L. Hubert