HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-3226.Jalea.15-03-09 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#2014-3226
UNION#2014-5112-0154
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Jalea) 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 Gregg Gray
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING March 5, 2015
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Toronto South Detention Centre agreed to participate
in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated
Protocol. Many of the grievances were settled through that process. However, this
grievance remained unresolved requiring 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] Mr. Raymond Jalea filed a grievance after an incident with his supervisor involving an
assignment of certain work. The grievor was of the view that the work he was being
asked to do was contrary to usual practice and policy. He thought he was being
“provoked” by his supervisor when he was told that he was being “directed” to do the
work and further he felt threatened when the supervisor told him to “watch” him.
[3] The grievor was not disciplined as a result of this incident but he felt strongly that usual
practice and policies should be followed in the assignment of work and that the
supervisor should not have threatened him. One of his remedial requests was that it
become known within the institution that he was not disciplined as the result of this
matter. He worried that his “good and clean” reputation of thirty-three years had been
“discredited.”
[4] There has been no violation of the Collective Agreement. The grievor did not receive
any discipline and it would be an understatement to say that there is nothing improper for
a supervisor to make clear that an order is being given when an employee is asked to
carry out an assignment of work. Further, I am not convinced that being told to “watch”
for his supervisor was intended to be threatening.
[5] Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 9th day of March 2015.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair