HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeters 15-08-17IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
COMMUNITY LIVING NORTH HALTON
(the “Employer”)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, LOCAL 268
(the “Union”)
GRIEVANCE OF CARINA PETERS
(OPSEU #2014-0268-0011)
SOLE ARBITRATOR: John Stout
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer:
Andre Nowakowski, Miller Thomson LLP
For the Union:
Robin Lostracco, Counsel
HEARING HELD IN TORONTO, ONTARIO ON AUGUST 12, 2015
2
AWARD
INTRODUCTION
[1] This matter concerns a grievance filed by the Union on behalf of Carina
Peters (the “grievor”) dated October 15, 2014 (the “grievance”).
[2] The Union alleges that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement
by not providing the grievor with a safe and healthy work environment.
[3] The Employer denies any violation of the collective agreement and
maintains that they have provided a safe and healthy work environment.
[4] This matter came on for hearing in Toronto, Ontario on August 12, 2015.
At the hearing, counsel advised me that the parties had agreed that they would
proceed with a consensual mediation-arbitration process pursuant to s. 50 of the
Labour Relations Act, 1995 S.O. 1995, c.1 Sch. A, as amended (the “LRA”).
[5] Counsel made detailed submissions, including outlining the facts that
gave rise to the grievance. After hearing submissions, I met with counsel and
attempted to assist the parties with resolving the grievance by mediation.
Unfortunately, the parties were unable to agree to a mutually satisfactory
resolution. Accordingly, I was asked to determine the grievance by arbitration.
[6] Counsel agreed that I could issue a decision that was binding on the
parties, but would be without prejudice to any position either party may take in
the future and would not constitute a precedent between them. It was also
agreed that my decision would be based on the submissions of counsel.
3
DECISION
[7] The grievor is currently not employed at the work location where she
alleges that the work environment was unsafe and not healthy. Rather, for the
past five months the grievor has been employed in a temporary position at a
different work location. Recently, the grievor’s temporary position was posted as
a permanent position (Posting 15-023). There is no dispute that the grievor can
perform the work of the permanently posted position, as it is exactly the same
work she has been performing for the past five months. In addition, there is no
dispute that the grievor is the most senior applicant for the permanent posted
position.
[8] Based on all the circumstances, I am of the view, that it would be just
and reasonable to award the grievor the permanent posted position, which would
accommodate her concerns and resolve the dispute between the parties.
[9] Accordingly, after carefully considering the submissions of the parties
and the undisputed facts, I order the Employer to award the grievor the
permanent posted position (Posting 15-023).
[10] I remain seized to address any issue arising from the implementation or
interpretation of my award.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 17th day of August, 2015.
John Stout-Arbitrator