HomeMy WebLinkAboutCzerkas/Grey 24-09-25IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
B E T W E E N:
COMMUNITY LIVING GREATER SUDBURY
(“the Employer”)
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 676
(“the Union”)
AWARD
Before: Mark Wright, Arbitrator
Re: Grievances of Catherine Czerkas and Winston Grey
Appearances
For the Employer:
Kathleen Stokes, Counsel
For the Union:
Daniel Hales, Regional Grievance Officer
Hearing Date: September 25, 2024
2
Overview
1. There are two grievances before me, the grievance of Catherine Czerkas and the
grievance of Winston Grey (“the grievors”), both of which allege that the collective agreement,
and specifically Articles 7.06 and 7.07, were violated, along with various employer policies, when
the grievors were redeployed to Grandview, one of many residential care facilities operated by
the Employer (collectively the “grievances”).
2. A hearing over Zoom was conducted before me on September 25th, 2024, at which time
an effort was made to mediate a solution to the grievances. Unfortunately, that effort failed, at
which point the parties asked me to issue a mediation/arbitration decision pursuant to s. 50 of
the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995.
3. Based on the documents filed before me and the submissions of the parties, the
grievances are dismissed. My reasons for the dismissal are briefly outlined below.
Reasons for Decision
4. The grievors are both senior Direct Support Professionals with many years of experience
working for the Employer. While there is no question that the Employer has the right under the
collective agreement to redeploy Direct Support Professionals to different residential care
facilities on an as-needed basis, the grievors allege that their redeployment to Grandview in
November of 2022 was unsafe and in violation of the collective agreement because on that
occasion none of the staff who regularly work at Grandview were on shift. Also, as it turned out,
none of the four staff redeployed to Grandview had access to Sharevision, which is a software
product that would have allowed them to access the various programs and protocols in place at
the facility.
5. The grievors’ main concern is that training be made available to staff to help support them
in redeployment situations.
6. The Employer points out that the grievors had the right to request training before being
redeployed to Grandview and neither of them requested it, although they had advance notice of
3
the redeployment. Moreover, they were each offered training after the redeployment, but
neither of them took up the offer.
7. The Employer has also made clear in response to the grievance that staff who feel a need
for additional training should request it.
8. On the day in question, the Employer states that it was not aware that the staff
redeployed to Grandview had no access to Sharevision. It has since rectified that problem. It
notes, however, that the Grandview staff were at a staff meeting approximately 5 minutes from
the facility and were available by telephone if necessary. A review of the call logs shows that no
calls were made to the Grandview staff to seek clarification with respect to the protocols.
9. Articles 7.06 and 7.07 of the collective agreement read as follows:
7.06 Harassment and Violence in the Workplace
(a) Community Living Greater Sudbury and the Local Union shall cooperate
to the fullest extent possible to ensure the workplace is free from bullying/
psychological harassment and workplace violence.
(b) Harassment means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or
conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.
This includes such comments or conduct because of sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity or gender expression as well as making sexual solicitation or
advance where the person making the solicitation or advance knows or
ought reasonably to know that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.
(c) The Employer undertakes to investigate all complaints of workplace
harassment in an expeditious manner.
(d) Workplace violence is defined as the exercise or attempted exercise of
physical force by a person against a worker that causes or could cause
physical injury to the worker, or a statement or behaviour that it is
reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force
against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the
worker. This also includes incidents of domestic violence entering the
workplace.
(e) It is understood that incidents of workplace harassment and violence can
occur at off-site workplace locations.
4
(f) The Parties agree that such incidents will not be condoned. An Employee
who believes he/she has been subjected to such an incident shall report this
to a Supervisor who will follow the CLGS policies and procedures in order to
ensure safety of the worker.
(g) The Employer agrees to consult with the Joint Health and Safety
Committee concerning workplace violence/harassment. Policies and
procedures shall be communicated to all Employees.
7.07 Reduce Risk of Harm
(a) the Parties shall work together to reduce the risk of harm to all individuals
in the workplace.
(b) In consultation with the Local Union, the Employer shall develop written
policies and procedures, to reduce risk of harm. Such policies and procedures
shall be addressed but not limited to the following:
(i) Management of potentially disruptive clients or harmful situations
(ii) hazard assessment of potentially harmful situations
(iii) developing measures to reduce risk of harm
(c) The Employer shall provide training to all staff that shall include:
(i) recognition of potentially disruptive clients or harmful situations
(ii) defusing disruptive behavior
(iii) Personal safety skills
(d) The Employer shall provide employees who are required to work alone in
the field with appropriate and effective communication devices, if indicated.
10. I find that neither Article has been breached under the circumstances of this case. The
facts at issue do not constitute “Harassment” as defined in Article 7.06 (b), nor do they constitute
“Workplace violence” as defined in Article 7.06 (d). Moreover, there is no evidence before me
to suggest that Article 7.07 has been breached. Specifically, there is no evidence before me to
establish that the Employer failed to develop in consultation with the Union, written policies and
5
procedures designed to reduce the risk of harm (Article 7.07 (b)), nor is there evidence to
establish that the Employer failed to train staff in harm reduction as contemplated by Article 7.07
(c). Finally, there is no evidence before me to establish that the Employer failed to provide
communication devices to those employees working alone as contemplated by Article 7.07 (d).
11. Apart from Article 7.06 and 7.07, I was not directed to any other Articles of the collective
agreement, or specific employer policies, that might have been violated in the circumstances of
the case.
12. Certainly, the circumstances in which the grievors found themselves was less than ideal
given that on the day in question none of the regular staff employed at Grandview were on shift—
the regular staff were at a staff meeting which is why the grievors had been redeployed to the
location. Situations like this are bound to occur from time to time in an organization as large as
Community Living Greater Sudbury. The grievors, however, were senior professionals with years
of experience and considerable expertise in the field. They also could have requested training in
advance of the redeployment, though neither did. Given these facts, the grievors’ redeployment
to Grandview on the day in question did not breach the collective agreement.
13. The grievances are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 25th day of September, 2024.
Mark Wright--Arbitrator