HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-1071.Hyland.14-05-16 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#2011-1071, 2011-1125, 2011-3196, 2011-3197, 2011-3748, 2012-0203, 2012-0204, 2012-1291,
2012-1295, 2012-1296, 2012-2955, 2012-2956, 2013-0742, 2013-1158, 2013-1159, 2013-1160,
2013-3189, 2013-3190, 2013-3191, 2013-3392, 2013-3585, 2013-3586, 2013-3587, 2013-3588
UNION#2011-0368-0091, 2011-0368-0101, 2011-0368-0211, 2011-0368-0212, 2012-0368-0019,
2012-0368-0031, 2012-0368-0032, 2012-0368-0081, 2012-0368-0086, 2012-0368-0087,
2012-0368-0160, 2012-0368-0161, 2013-0368-0058, 2013-0368-0080, 2013-0368-0081,
2013-0368-0082, 2013-0368-0166, 2013-0368-0167, 2013-0368-0168, 2013-0368-0183,
2011-0368-0252, 2011-0368-0253, 2011-0368-0254, 2011-0368-0255
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hyland) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ken Petryshen Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION David Wright
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Suneel Bahal
Ministry of Government Services
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
CONFERENCE CALL May 15, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] At a hearing on April 9, 2014, the parties agreed to address the outstanding issue of
Mr. Hyland’s placement at the Central East Detention Centre (“CECC”) on the scheduled
hearing dates of May 21, 22, 27 and 28, 2014. The parties agreed that the placement issue would
be addressed by the mediation/arbitration procedure as contained in article 22.16 of the
Collective Agreement.
[2] On May 15, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., I participated in a lengthy conference call with
counsel which had been requested earlier that day. Counsel raised a number of matters that had
arisen between them concerning how the placement issues should be addressed. Having
entertained their submissions on the nature of the issues and how they should be addressed, I
advised counsel that I would soon release a decision that would address the disputed matters that
were raised during the conference call. Exercising my authority as a mediator/arbitrator under
article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement, I direct that the hearing of the outstanding placement
issues shall proceed as follows:
1. The hearing will commence at the CECC at 11:00 a.m. on May 21, 2014, with
a tour of the areas of the institution where the disputed posts are located.
2. Given that Mr. Hyland has selected the Video Conferencing post and the GDO
post as his preferred assignments, and given that Mr. Hyland would be entitled to
be placed in these positions based on his seniority, but for issues as to whether
these posts satisfy his accommodation needs, the parties shall first address
whether or not Mr. Hyland can be appropriately accommodated in the Video
Conferencing and GDO posts before considering whether or not Mr. Hyland
should be assigned to the posts identified by the Employer as appropriate, namely
Central Control, Radio Room and Unit 12 sub-control.
3. With respect to the Video Conferencing post, there is a factual dispute between
the parties as to the level of risk of exposure to smoke that Mr. Hyland will
experience if assigned to that post. There is also a dispute as to whether or not the
hours of work of that post can be adapted without cost or hardship in order to
- 3 -
accommodate Mr. Hyland’s hours of work restrictions. I am satisfied that this
latter issue can be resolved based on documentary evidence without the need to
hear viva voce evidence. Since a determination of the hours of work issue may
affect the need to deal with the issue of the risk of exposure to smoke in the Video
Conferencing post, I will first hear argument on the hours of work issue before
determining whether I need to address the risk of exposure to smoke issue. I will
hear argument on the hours of work issue on May 21, 2014, at the CECC.
4. With respect to the GDO post, there is a dispute between the parties as to
whether or not Mr. Hyland can perform a sufficient number of duties related to
that post to make it a full and useful assignment, and in particular whether Mr.
Hyland could be accommodated by only escorting inmates to and from the
“slider” entrance doors to a particular unit, as opposed to escorting inmates all the
way into or from the living areas on the unit. I will hear evidence and argument
from the parties on the GDO post issues on May 22, 2014, at Toronto.
5. Having heard from the parties on these issues, I will then issue a decision as to
whether or not I need to hear from the parties on the risk of exposure to smoke in
the Video Conferencing post, or on the appropriateness of Unit 12 sub-control,
Central Control or the Radio Room posts.
6. There appear to be no substantial factual issues between the parties as to the
appropriateness of Unit 12 sub-control, Central Control or the Radio Room posts.
Therefore, if I need to hear from the parties on these issues, I anticipate that they
can be resolved on the basis of submissions only. As such, I have determined that
if I do have deal with the risk of exposure to smoke in the Video Conferencing
post, and/or if I need to hear submissions from counsel on the appropriateness of
Unit 12 sub-control, Central Control or the Radio Room posts, these matters can
all be dealt with on one day of hearing and that day will be May 28, 2014.
Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for May 27, 2014, is hereby cancelled.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 16th day of May 2014.
Ken Petryshen, Vice-Chair