HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0650.Laryea.13-12-10 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#2009-0650, 2011-3198, 2011-3985
UNION#2009-0517-0066, 2012-0517-0003, 2012-0517-0013
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Laryea) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Nick Mustari
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Victoria Fichtenbaum
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING December 3, 2013
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Toronto West Detention Centre agreed to participate in
the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol.
Most of the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few grievances
remained unresolved and therefore require a decision from this Board. The Protocol
provides that decisions will be issued within a relatively short period of time after the
actual mediation sessions and will be without reasons. Further, the decision is to be without
prejudice and precedent.
[2] Sandra Laryea is a Correctional Officer who filed three grievances. The first grievance was
filed after Ms. Laryea was given a ten-day suspension. Her grievance contended “the
punishment is excessive”. By way of remedy she requested to be made whole including
compensation for lost overtime opportunities.
[3] The discipline was imposed as the result of an incident that took place on September 18,
2011. It is not my intention to set out the allegations or the facts in this matter. However, I
do note that the Employer provided documentation including photographs. It also should be
mentioned that the grievor denied the most of the allegations.
[4] After consideration, I have been persuaded that the grievor did commit the offense for
which she received a ten-day suspension. However, given that the grievor had been
discipline free, I feel the discipline is somewhat harsh. I accept that the Employer wanted to
send a strong message and that it was particularly concerned that the grievor failed to take
any responsibility for her actions. Indeed, she was still denying culpability at the time these
grievances were heard and I also found that somewhat troubling.
[5] Accordingly, I order that a five-day suspension replace the ten-day suspension that was
imposed. All records should be changed to comply with this ruling and the grievor is to be
compensated for five days lost.
[6] The second grievance alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and
HPRO because the Employer did not provide her with some overtime opportunities during
a period for which she was being accommodated due to family status matters. A review of
- 3 -
her accommodation plan – signed by both parties – noted “this accommodation will affect
your ability to work overtime”.
[7] While it may be that the grievor could have worked some overtime shifts during the
weekends of the period for which she was being accommodated, I am unable to find that
the Employer has violated the Collective Agreement or HPRO by failing to assign Ms.
Laryea overtime during this period. The grievance is denied.
[8] The third grievance alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the
Ontario Human Rights Code. The facts leading to the filing of the grievance surrounded the
grievor filing of a WDHP complaint concerning a co-worker.
[9] After considering the facts of this matter, I am of the view that there was no violation of the
Collective Agreement or the Code. However, I understand that the decision of the
investigator of the complaint was that both the grievor and her co-worker were to receive
individual coaching and then a joint session would be held. The grievor received her
coaching but the coworker did not. The Employer is ordered to complete the
recommendations so that the grievor’s coworker receive his coaching and that both have a
joint session.
[10] To the extent set out above, the grievances are partially upheld.
[11] I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 10th day of December 2013.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair