HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0885.Hartmann et al.07-03-05 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-0885, 2004-3169
UNION# 2004-0229-0009, 2004-0229-0034
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hartmann et al.) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles and Scott Andrews
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Pauline Jones and Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING February 19, 20 & 21, 2007.
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
March 2, 2007.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The Ministry and OPSEU have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006.
Although OCI is not one of the institutions covered by the protocol, the parties agreed on
February 19, 2007 to be bound by the terms of the protocol for this session. It is not necessary to
reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have
agreed to a “True Mediation-Arbitration” process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this
matter in mediation. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
The grievors are both CO2’s who are married to each other. At the time of the grievances they
both worked at OCI. On the day in question, they were both assigned to work in the same range.
The OM16 on duty appears to have believed that it was improper for the grievor’s to work
together in the same range, and that such an arrangement was a breach of Ministry policy
regarding the potential for conflict of interest between family members. He made arrangements
to separate the grievors, so that they were assigned to different ranges for the remainder of the
shift.
3
The grievor’s allege they were no breach of the Ministry policy, which is focused on reporting
relationships. They allege the OM16’s actions were a breach of their human rights based on
marital status, and that the change caused them embarrassment with their coworkers. The
employer concedes that the working relationship in question was not a breach of the Ministry’s
policy, and advises that steps were taken after the incident in order to clarify this matter with
managers at OCI. The parties differ over the question of the amount of compensation, if any,
that is due to the grievors.
DECISION
The grievor’s are to be credited with 12 hours compensating time each. I will remain seized to
deal with any issues arising from the implementation of this award.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of March, 2007.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair