Common use of Det Clause in Contracts

Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, as advised by ▇▇▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, met with the grievor on December 12, 2000 and told him he was going to be transferred out of the MSU. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ also said that he made notes of their discussion, “on a steno pad”, after their talk. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ testified that the grievor, “Became angry and heated, he demanded to know why. I advised him about [his discussion with Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇] concerning problems in the Unit and incidents I’d been involved in with him previously, expense sheets, swaying the other officers, [incidents] that were not documented. I advised him that it was a decision made by management to have him removed from the Unit. He wanted additional reasons. I told him there were none other than those I had relayed. He demanded to know if there had been problems since I had spoken to him and I advised that none came to mind in the last few months. He said, ‘Am I disruptive?’ I said yes. He said there was a time when everyone was coming to him. I asked if I was disruptive and he said ‘no’. [The grievor] suggested I should have more answers and if I didn’t, I should have. I advised him that complaints about his behaviour had apparently made their way to the Deputy Chief’s office and Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had advised he wanted no disruptive behaviour in [the Unit], that there appeared to be two bosses on one team and there should only be one. He stated that this was not over, that we’re going to have to answer to this, it was going to get dirty and things were going to come out.” After this discussion, the grievor had approached Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and said that, “He wanted to maintain a workable environment and if anything had to be done I could count on him.” The grievor recalled his meeting with Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on December 12, 2000. “He told me I was going to be moved because of my disruptive behaviour. I said what? He said I’d likely be transferred in January. I asked what disruptive behaviour. He said he’d provide no details because I’d put a complaint against him [and] if I wanted to search, I could go to D/Sgt. Ground or Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to get answers. He said I’d be wasting my time, the decision had been made on the third floor and it came from the Deputy Chief. I continued to ask questions of him learn where, how, who, the notion that I became disruptive. He provided no information and said I won’t [for] fear of a complaint. He said he had nothing to do with it, he did not like it, that he believed in graduated discipline. I asked what he did to stop [the transfer] and he said nothing, just talk to D/Sgt. Ground and Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.”

Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, after completing duties in the office at the end of the shift, went to the hospital to inquire about the grievor. The grievor was, “Waiting for his x-ray results [and] a short time later, the attending physician advised of a broken bone in his foot. We got into a discussion regarding [the grievor] wanting to return to work ASAP in some capacity I also talked with [the grievor] about the submission of a worker compensation form. I suggested [to the grievor] that I’d submit the form with an alteration, that he’d injured his foot while cleaning the vehicle and not actually as how the injury occurred while playing football. [The grievor] asked me if I was okay with that, I advised by ▇▇▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, met with the grievor on December 12, 2000 [I was] and told him I’d submit it to ensure he was going to be transferred out of the MSU. covered.” Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ also said that he made notes of their discussionwent back to the office and filled out an injured on duty (“IOD”) form and a workers’ compensation form describing the accident having occurred when the grievor was attending to his vehicle. He did so because, “I felt that playing football while on a steno pad”, after their talkduty would have been seen as un-necessary.” Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ said that the injury “definitely” occurred while the grievor was on duty. He said that he did not show the grievor the forms before submitting them. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ testified that the grievor, “Became angry and heated, he demanded to know why. I advised him about [his discussion with Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇] concerning problems in the Unit and incidents I’d been involved in with him previously, expense sheets, swaying the other officers, [incidents] that were not documented. I advised him that believed it was a decision made by management to have him removed from the Unit. He wanted additional reasons. I told him there were none other than those I had relayed. He demanded to know if there had been problems since I had spoken to him and I advised in April, 2001 that none came to mind in the last few months. He said, ‘Am I disruptive?’ I said yes. He said there was a time when everyone was coming to him. I asked if I was disruptive and he said ‘no’. [The grievor] suggested I should have more answers and if I didn’t, I should have. I advised him that complaints about his behaviour had apparently made their way to the Deputy Chief’s office and Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had advised D/Sgt. Ground that the injury had occurred in a different way than as he wanted no disruptive behaviour in [the Unit], that there appeared to be two bosses on one team and there should only be onehad reported. He stated that this was not over, that we’re going to have to answer to this, it was going to get dirty and things were going to come out.” After this discussionIn cross-examination, the grievor had approached said that on August 15, 2000, “I was working, in a parking lot, cleaning the car, stepped off something and broke my foot.” He said that he was not playing football at the time, but that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and said thatConst. Ibbot “May have, “He wanted to maintain It’s been such a workable environment and if anything had to be done I could count on himlong time.” The grievor recalled his meeting with He “doesn’t really recollect at this time”, if one of them had thrown him the ball and engaged him in the game. He believes he drove to the hospital by himself and thought Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on December 12, 2000. “He told me I came to see him while he was going to be moved because of my disruptive behaviour. I said what? He said I’d likely be transferred in January. I asked what disruptive behaviourthere. He said he’d provide no details because I’d put does not recall being shown a complaint against him [and] if I wanted to search, I could go to D/Sgt. Ground or Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to get answers. He said I’d be wasting my time, the decision had been made on the third floor and it came from the Deputy Chief. I continued to ask questions of him learn where, how, who, the notion that I became disruptive. He provided no information and said I won’t [for] fear of a complaint. He said he had nothing to do with it, he did not like it, that he believed in graduated discipline. I asked what he did to stop [the transfer] and he said nothing, just talk to D/Sgt. Ground and Insprreport by Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and did not believe he had done so. He recalled being interviewed in May, 2001 by Professional Standards about the IOD form in question. He never saw a copy of the interview which had been taped. He does not recall saying that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had shown him his IOD form while he was at the hospital.”

Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ also did not document, prior to January 22, 2001, any of the events or incidents involving the grievor which he said began when he noticed the grievor’s job performance to change beginning with an incident on March 29, 2000. He said, however, that he noted some, but not all, of these incidents in his personal logbook and in a stenographer’s pad, which volumes he eventually agreed, in cross-examination, were not police-issued notebooks after having identified them as advised having been “supplied by ▇▇▇▇▇the police department.” On March 29, 2000 the grievor conducted foot surveillance of a target who had gone into a mall. He said that he purchased a double-scoop ice-cream cone from a kiosk because its seating area offered an unobstructed view of the target who had gone into a store. At the end of the shift he presented Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, met ▇ with the grievor on December 12, 2000 and told him he was going to be transferred out of the MSUa $5.28 expense claim. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ also said thought it was not an appropriate amount. In that he made notes of their discussionregard, Const. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had said, “on a steno pad”You’d think the money was coming out of your pocket.” After consulting with Det. Carrique, after their talk. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ testified that he informed the grievorgrievor he thought it to be an un­ necessary expense, that he was not setting a good example for the junior members of the team, felt the grievor was “Became angry nickel and heateddime[-ing] the company”, he demanded and reminded the grievor of his having approved an early end of work, by some 1½ hours, prior to know whythe end of shift the previous day. I advised him about [his discussion with Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇] concerning problems in He further recalled the Unit and incidents I’d been involved in with him previously, expense sheets, swaying the other officers, [incidents] that were not documented. I advised him that it was a decision made by management grievor to have him removed from said he saw the Unitexpense submission as “an opportunity to aggravate D/Supt. He wanted additional reasons. I told him there were none other than those I Sorel with whom he had relayed. He demanded to know if there had been problems since I had spoken to him and I advised that none came to mind in the last few months. He said, ‘Am I disruptive?’ I said yes. He said there was a time when everyone was coming to him. I asked if I was disruptive and he said ‘no’. [The grievor] suggested I should have more answers and if I didn’t, I should have. I advised him that complaints about his behaviour had apparently made their way to the Deputy Chief’s office and Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had advised he wanted no disruptive behaviour in [the Unit], that there appeared to be two bosses on one team and there should only be one. He stated that this was not over, that we’re going to have to answer to this, it was going to get dirty and things were going to come outprevious problems.” After this discussion, the grievor had approached Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and said that, “He wanted to maintain a workable environment and if anything had to be done I could count on him.” recorded some of this exchange in his personal logs. The grievor recalled his meeting Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to have only made mention of the earlier shift, and said he had not been asked by Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ why he had bought the ice-cream but had only questioned the amount, i.e., $5.28 for an ice-cream cone. He agreed with Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on December 12, 2000. “He told me I was going to be moved because of my disruptive behaviour. I said what? He said I’d likely be transferred in January. I asked what disruptive behaviourabout the previous shift and did not submit the expense. He said he’d provide no details because I’d put a complaint against him [and] if I wanted to search, I could go to D/Sgt. Ground or Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to get answers. He said I’d be wasting my time, the decision had been made on the third floor and it came from the Deputy Chief. I continued to ask questions thought he would never hear of him learn where, how, who, the notion that I became disruptive. He provided no information and said I won’t [for] fear of a complaint. He said he had nothing to do with it, he did not like it, that he believed in graduated discipline. I asked what he did to stop [the transfer] and he said nothing, just talk to D/Sgt. Ground and Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇this matter again.”