HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1494.Danbrook.92-01-02~'"~ ~ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
OR 0 WN EMPL 0 YEES DE L 'ON TA RIO
190 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE2100, TORONTO, ONTARfQ MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: f415) $26~1388
190, RUE DUNDAS QUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG 1Z~ FACStMtLE/T~_7.~"COPlE : (416) ,t26-1396
1494/89
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARHAINING ACT
Before
THE HRIEV~NCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Danbrook)
Hrievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
BEFORE: S. Stewart Vice-Chairperson
J. McManus Member
D. Montrose Member
FOR THE N. Roland
GRIEVOR Counsel
Cornish Roland
Barristers & Solicitor~
FOR THE C. Peterson
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HE~RIN~ April 4, 1990
August 28, 1990
November 13, 30, 1990
April 15, 1991
May 8, 31, 1991
July 11, 1991
DECISION
In a grievance dated May 16,. 1989, Mr. R. A. Danbrook
alleges that the Employer has breached Article 18.1 of the
Collective Agreement in that it failed to make reasonable
provisions for his health and safety. Mr. Danbrook is
employed by the Ministry of Transportation as a Highway
Carrier Enforcement Officer, His duties in that position
involve the enforcement of various pieces of legislation
which regulate commercial vehicles. This legislation
includes the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, the Dangerous
Goods Transportation Act, the Compulsory Automobile
Insurance Act, the Public Vehicles Act and the Highway
Traffic Act. Mr. Danbrook is designated as a provincial
offe'nces officer pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act
and he is a peace officer pursuant to the Highway Traffic
Act.
Mr. Danbrook carries out his duties when stationed at a
weigh station at the side of a highway or in the course of
a highway patrol. He wears a uniform and carries a badge.
An automobile with Ministry logos and flashing lights is
provided to him by the Ministry.
An immediate consequence arising out of a regulatory
violation such as driving an excessive number of hours, a
violation of weight restrictions or a lack of vehicle
2
registration is that the vehicle may be put out of service.
As well, an Enforcement Officer may issue an offence notice
the ultimate consequence of which covers the range from a
fine to a term of imprisonment. Mr. Danbrook is not
required to carry out arrests in the course of his duties.
There is a point demerit system for fleet operators, based
on numbers of infractions. Accumulation of demerit points
at various levels results initially in a letter of warning
and may Ultimately result in the prohibition of operations.
In addition to these matters, Mr. Danbrook referred to the
fact that a driver who is stopped and whose vehicle is put
out of service faces the immediate problems of an inability
to meet client schedules as well as the monetary cost of
any repairs that are-required.
The concerns of Mr. Danbrook that resulted in'his
grievance arise from situations in which he was assaulted
and threatened while in the course of his duties, matters
which will be referred to further, in addition to more
generalized concerns about his working conditions. As
previously noted, .Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement
obliges the Employer to make reasonable provisions'for the
health and safety of its employees. It is the Union's
position that it has failed to do so in this instance. The
relief claimed in the grievance is as follows:
1. MTO Enforcement Officers be equipped and trained
to the same standard as MNR Conservation Officers.
2. Area patrols between the hours of 10:OO p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. be subject to a two officer per
cruiser policy.
3. Twenty-four hour radio contact at all times.
Although Conservation Officers are provided with a sidearm,
it was not the position of the Union %hat Enforcement
Officers ought to be provided with'a sidearm.
The Employer has made a number of changes to its
policies and practices following the grievance. Counsel
agreed that the Board should address the current position
of the Employer with respect to these matters, rather than
the situation as it existed at the time of the grievance.
At the time of the grievance, the vehicles operated by
Enforcement OfficErs were equipped with two-way radios.
This radio allowed for contact with a central dispatch,
other Ministry vehicles and an inspection station if it is
open. Twenty-four hour coverage was provided between
November and ~pril. However, between April and November,
an operator was assigned only between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Connection could be made with the Bell
telephone system, in order-to contact the OoP.P. Mr.
Danbrook testified that there were often delays when he
4
attemp%ed to make'such contacts. Mr. Danbrook testified
~hat it was his view that a cellular phone system which
could be programmed for speed'dialing would alleviate his
concerns about quickly making contact in the case of an
emergency. However, it. was his view that a twenty-four
radio system would be preferable to that system as it would
result in instant communication. The Ministry has now
provided employees with cellular phones which can be
programmed for speed dialing. While a better system may be
possible, Mr. Danbrook acknowledged that a cellular phone
system would allieviate the concerns expressed.with respect
to the communication system that existed previously. It is
clear, in our view, that the Employer has fulfilled its
obligation under s. 18.1 with respect to this matter. Mr.
Roland submitted %hat the Board should order the Employer
to maintain this communication sYstem. We do not agree.
The Board considers this matter to have been resolved.
There are any number of circumstances which might
appropriately compel the Employer to modify its present
communication system and it would not be appropriate for us
to make an order purporting to deal with unknown
circumstances.
The Employer has also responded to the concerns raised
in the grievance with respect, to the provision of training,
albiet not in a manner that is satisfactory to the Union, a
5
matter which was referred to in some detail below. As
well, the Employer has responded to the request to provide
two officers to a car during the night shift by making such
assignments in special circumstances, such as "blitzes",
circumstances in which the Enforcement Officers are engaged
in a concerted enforcement effort.
The essence of the dispute as it presently exists
between the parties relates to whether the Employer is
obliged to provide two person patrols on all night shifts,
additional equipment, specifically handcuffs and the option
to carry a baton, and self-defense training in order to
fulfil its obligation to make reasonable provisions for the
health and safety of its employees ~ursuant to Article 18.1
of the Collective Agreement.
Mr. Danbrook gave evidence concerning an incident
which took place in January, 1987. While in the course of
his duties, Mr. Danbrook noticed a chain hanging on a
secondary attachment to a vehicle. He stopped the driver,
who was unable to produce a licence, proof of insurance or
'a permit.. · While Mr. Danbrook was in the process of
attempting to obtain information about the driver through
his radio system, the driver contacted his father by C.B.
radio. The father arrived at the scene at which time Mr.
Danbrook advised him that his son had been unable to
6
produce the documentation requested, The man replied by
stating "we'll settle this here and now". He then grabbed
Mr. Danbrook by the tie with his left hand and pulled back
his right fist. Mr. Danbrook backed away and the clip on
his tie broke off, allowing Mr. Danbrook to escape his
hold. Mr. Danbrook went to his cruiser and contacted the
OPP office. He followed the truck and laid charges against
'the driver in the presence of an officer.
The next incident took place in May or June, 1987. Mr.
Danbrook stopped a pickup truck on a routine inspection.
He determined that the ownership and registration numbers
did not match, which indicated the possibility that licence'
plates had been switched. Mr. Danbrook carried out an
investigation which indicated that licence plates had in
fact~been switched on the vehicle~ He contacted the local
police authorities and arranged for a police officer to
accompany him to the residence of the owner of the ve~icle
where he intended to remove the plates and charge the owner
with an offence. Mr. Danbrook testified that when he
advised the owner of his intention the driver became
verbally abusive. When Mr. Danbrook attempted to remove
the licence plates the owner of the vehicle reached past
him and shoved him. The police officer intervened and held
'the man back until Mr. Danbrook comPleted the removal of
the licence plates. While Mr. Danbrook was leaving the man
7
threatened to assault him if he ever caught him alone by
the side of the road.
A third incident took place on the morning of April 27,
1989. Mr. Danbrook stopped a vehicle and made routine
inquiries. When Mr. Danbrook asked the driver for his
.driver's licence the.driver stated that he would not
provide him with it. Mr. Danbrook then asked him to get
out of his truck. The driver responded with an obscenity,
placed his vehicle in gear and backed it into Mr.
Danbrook' s parked ~vehicle, pushing it backwards. The
driver then got out of the vehicle and ran toward Mr.
Danbrook demanding the return of the documentation he had
previously provided to him. Mr. Danbrook told him that he
would not return it to him and the driver responded by
physically assaulting him. They wrestled briefly until a
person driving by came to Mr. Danbrook's assistance. The
driver left the scene shortly afterward. Mr. Danbrook
sustained bruises and a cut. The driver was subsequently
charged and convicted of assault. Mr. 'Danbrook testified
that if he had been equipped with a baton, the incident
would not have happened. He also fel~ that l%andcuffs would
have assisted him.
A fourth incident occured in October, 1989. Mr.
Danbrook was working with a fellow officer on a midnight
8
shift. They observed a truck with an expired validation
sticker and stopped it. The driver advised Mr. Danbrook
that he had previously had his licence downgraded because
of a heart problem. He further advised Mr. Danbrook that
during this time he continued to drive }~is vehicle and
carried a shotgun and stated that if anyone from his
Ministry had stopped him he would have shot that person.~
Mr. Danbrook testified about this matter in an application
brought agains~t this-person to prohibit him from possessing.
weapons. A Provincial Court judge granted the application
stating that: "I feel that there is a Very substantial risk
that [the respondent's] anger towards the Ministry
officials may result in an-incident which would be entirely
regrettable if he had weapons in his possession".
Mr. Danbrook referred to a further incident in which
another individual made a threat on April 14, 1987. Mr.
Danbrook charged an individual with an offence under the
Highway Traffic Act. The driver asked the identity of
another officer who, he stated, had stopped a number of
drivers. The driver stated that he "knew people who would
kill that person if they caught him at night".
During a "blitz", a concerted enforcement period, two
Enforcement Officers are assigned to a vehicle during' a~
night shift. However, the usual assignement is one officer
9
to a vehicle during a night shift. Mr. Danbrook expressed
concerns about such an assignment on the basis of a greater
likelihood of an assault against him when he approached
drivers in the dark. He referred to the possibility that
drivers may be travelling at night in order to avoid
detection and therefore, may be more prone to violence if
stopped than a driver might be during the day.
The Employer adduced evidence from Mr. D. Tait, who has
been employed by the Ministry of Transportation since 1963.
He was initially employed as an Enforcement Officer. In
1978 he had some limited involvement in the field. In 1987
Mr. Tait became Regional Manager for the south-west region
of the Ministry. This area is divided into three
districts, one of which is the London district where Mr.
Danbrook is employed. Mr. Tait referred to the fact that
between 1978 and 1989 the enforcement responsibilities of
Enforcement Officers have been enlarged by virtue of
additional legislation. He also stated that there have
been 'initiatives taken in order tO increase visibility of
enforcement operations.
Mr. Tait testified that an assignment of two persons
to each patrol vehicle for every night shift would result
in decreasing visibility by half, as a result of reducing
the number of vehicles on patrol. The other alternative,
· 10
an increase in staff, by.ten employees, would result in an
increased yearly expenditure in the amount of approximately
$380,000.00 Mr. Tait emphasized that during the night
shift an employee is entitled to use his or her discretion
with respect to where and when a vehicle is to be stopped.
In particular, he referred to the fact that a vehicle could
be followed to a well lighted area and stopped there, where
assistance would be readily available and a confrontation
would be unlikely.
Mr. Tait testified that Highway Enforcement Officers
have not been provided with handcuffs because they are not
required to arrest people. However, he acknDwledged in
cross-examination that Enforcement Officers are expected to
defain drivers in the event of log book violations. Mr.
Tait stated that Enforcement Officers are not provided with
batons or self-defense training because they are not'
expected to engage' in physical confrontations with people.
Mr. Tait stated that the training that is provided to
Enforcement Officers is intended to allow them to identify
situations that have the potential to escalate into
violence and to withdraw from those situations. Mr. Tait
made reference to a few occasions during his time working
in the field when he had been subjected to threats and
verbal abuse. He had never been physically assaulted. He
stated that it was. his view that a non-confrontational
11
attitude on the part of tke officer did much to diffuse
potentially volatile situations. In cross-examination Mr.
Tait acknowledged the possibility that there might be
situations in which an officer would be unable to
anticipate a situation becoming violent, but stated that in
his view, that possibility was remote. Mr. Tait also
stated that it was his view that Enforcement Officers would
not be more safe as a result of an assignment of two
officers to patrol on a night shift.
The Employer also called Ms. F. LaBelle, ~ho was
employed as an Enforcement Officer in the Middlesex
detachment between 1985 and 1987. She performed
enforcement duties until 1989, at which time she was
promoted to the position of supervisor in Owen Sound. Ms.
LaBelle testified that she has been subjected to verbal
abuse but that she has never been assaulted in the course
of her duties. She stated that she dealt with.such
situations by not pursuing the matter. Ms. LaBelle
testified that she was apprehensive about working alone in
a vehicle during the night shift. She stated however, that
with the exercise of caution and with experience, she did
not have any concerns about her safety in such situations.
The Employer developed a "statement of principles"
12
dated March, 1991, for the guidance of its Enforcement
Officers. This document states as follows:
ENFORCEMENT STAFF SAFETY PRINCIPLES
The Occupational Health and Safety Act places
responsibility for safety in the workplace on
employers and employees alike. The Ministry
of Transportation'as an employer is not only
bound by the Act but is also committed to its
principles.
To promote and ensure officer safety, this
ministry has put forth the following safety
principles for enforcement staff.
1. MTO does not expect enforcement officers to
jeopardize their own health and safety during
the course of their duties.
2. Where there is an immediate, unavoidable risk
of physical violence, as a consequence of
initiating or further pursuing enforcement
action, officers are expected to remove
themselves from the situation.
3. When conducting roadside or similar
enforcement action at night, in isolated
areas, officers should record the particulars
of %he vehicle and of the situation before
leaving their cruisers or station. ~Whenever
possible, use your in-car communication
system to keep your co-workers or supervisors
informed of your situation.
4. Contact with the driver/owner/operator must
be performed in such a manner so as to avoid
the initiation or provocation of conflict.
Training tools are an important asset tO draw
upon in dealing with potentially
confrontational situations.
5. Staff shall report details of all incidents
of abuse, both verbal and physical, to their
supervisors.
13
In an accompanying memorandum dated March 22, 1991, the
~Employer stated that it had designed a training program "to
assist officers in dealing with a driver so as to better
assess the situation, the impression the officer causes,
and the course of action to take". The training is
referred to as "non violent conflict resolution". This
training was provided to Enforcement Officers and was
incorporated into the basic training courses for new
employees.
The training was developed and provided by Dr. A, T.
Polgar. Dr. Polgar has a Ph.D. in psychology. He has a
clinical practice and as well, has Provided consulting
services such as the development of programs and provisions
of seminars to various agencies. He has a good deal of
experience in correctional matters. Dr. Polgar was
retained by the Ministry of Transportation to develop and
implement a program to deal with conflict ~resolution, which
he did after a review of the work performed by the
Enforcement Officers and meetings with the officers and
managers. The training provided by Dr. Polgar deals with
defining the expectations of the Enforcement Officer. It
also deals with recognizing potentially volatile bahaviour
and withdrawal from a situation that is escalating. The
essence of Dr. Polgar's evidence was that it is possible
14
for a person to be trained to recognize when a situation
has the potential to become volatile. When this potential
volatility is ~recognized the person confronting the
situation can withdraw from it. ~It was Dr. Polgar's
opinion that by learnin.g to recognize when a situation is
potentially becoming violent and withdrawing from that
situation an Enforcement Officer could avoid a physical
attack. However, on cross-examination, Dr. Polgar
acknowledged that even if an officer properly utilized the
conflict avoidance training that was provided, it .was still
possible that an officer could be assaulted. Dr. Polgar
stated that it was his view that it would be inappr, opriate
for there to be a 'self-defense portion, to the trainin~ ~
provided and for batons to. be provided on the basis that
such actions would advance a conflicting message.
Specifically, it was his view that the provision of such
training and equipment would create the expectation on the
part of the ~ officers that such training was to be utilized,
contrary to their instructions that they are not to engage
in physical confrontations. In essence, it was his view
that the provision of such training might well result in
officers engaging in confrontations rather than avoiding
them. It was Dr. Polgar's opinion that instructing
employees that defensive training would only be used as a
last resort would not counteract a mixed message created by
providing both kinds of training.
15
As previously noted, it is the position of the Union
that notwithstanding the steps taken by the Employer there.
still exists a situation where the Employer has not
fulfilled its obligation to make reasonable provisions for
the health and safety of Enforcement Officers. It is the
Union's position that the circumstances of employment of
the Enforcement Officers should compel the conclusion that
they should be provided with the same training and
equipment that is provided to Conservation Officers
employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources, except for
a firearm. The Union adduced evidence regarding the
· training provided to Conserva.tion Officers. +As well, the
Union adduced evidence regarding ~he training provided to
employees at an institution operated by the Ministry of
Community and Social Services.
Mr. W. ~Lafferty, who has been a Conservation Officer
since 1977, gave evidence with respect to his duties and
responsibilities, as well as the equipment and training he
is provided with. Conservation Officers are required to
carry out enforcement duties in' relation to a number of
statutes. In the exercise of these:duties inside
provincial parks, Conservation OffiCers have the same
powers as a provincial police officer, including the powers
of arrest, search and seizure. Their powers of arrest,
16
search and seizure in connection with their enforcement
duties carried on outside of~a provincial park vary
according to the statute that is being enforced. They are
required to enforce some provisions of the Criminal Code.
The Conservation Officers wear a police style of
uniform. They are equipped with a sidearm, handcuffs and a
baton. Mr. Lafferty has worn a sidearm since he commenced
his duties as a Conservation Officer and he has worn a
baton since 1987. He testified that it was his personal
observation that verbal abuse directed towards him has
decreased since he commenced wearing a baton. Conservation
Officers receive training with respect to the use of a
firearm and a baton. Mr. Lafferty testified that during
afternoons and nights two officers'are assigned to work
together. Mr. Lafferty stated that his understanding of
the reason for this assignment was safety considerations as
well as the fact that the area that he patrols is a high
crime area.
Conservation Officers also receive training in self-
defense, in particular the application of force to the
pressure points of the body of an assailant. This type of
application of force, to areas of the body where nerves are
close to the surface of the skin, has 'the effect of causing
severe pain without causing any physical damage. The
17
application of force to a pressure point has the effect of
decreasing the mobility of a person for ten to twelve
seconds. Conservation Officers also receive training in
verbal skills in order to avoid the'escalation of
confrontations. Newly hired ConserVation Officers are
provided with this training over a three day period, for
eight hours a day. A refresher course is provided once a
year over one and one-half to two days.
Mr. P. Simcoe is an employee of the Ministry of
Community and Social Services who works at the Edgar Adult
Occupational Centre as a residential counsellor. The Edgar
Adult Occupational Centre is a residential institution
whose clients are mentally handicapped. As well, they
have a psychological, emotional or social problem. A
num6er of clients are prone to verbal or physical abuse.
Since 1978, residential counsellors have been provided with
training in what was physical and verbal interventive
techniques. Employees are taught self-defense techniques
ahd physical restraints. Four days of training is provided
to new employees. A refresher course is taught each year
for a full day. The program of physical restraints also
involves the application of force to pressure points. It
is to be used as a last resort in order to restrain
clients.
18
As indicated at the outset of this decision, the issue
for the Board to determine in this instance is w~ether the
Employer has fulfilled its oblig, ation to make reasonable
provisions for health and safety, in accordance.with
Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement.' The standard
implicit in article 18.1 is'an objective standard. We
agree with Mr' Peterson's submission that a honestly held
subjective belief on the part of an employee that
conditions of work are unsafe is not sufficient to
establish a violation of Article !8. 1. As well, it is
clear that Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement does
not require the Employer to ta~e measures to protect
employees from al~ possibility of harm, no matter how
remote.
It is within this framework that we must consider the
facts of this case. It is the Union's position that the
evidence clearly established the existence of a working
environment in which an assault was far from a remote
possibility. Mr. Roland emphasized the acknowledgement of~
Dr. Polgar that there would be instan~ces in which the nob-
confrontational techniques that he taught would not result
in preventing an assault. It is the Employer's position
that it has made reasonable provisions for the health and
safety of its- employees. It was further submitted that the
necessary relationship between the training and equipment
19
requested and health and safety concerns that were raised
had not been established. It was argued that the evidence'
of Dr. Polgar established the contrary, that the provision
of defensive training would be counter-productive in terms
of the goal of avoiding confrontations.
After a careful consideration of all of the evidence
and the submissions of counsel it is our conclusion that
the Employer has failed to comply with Article 18.1 of the
Collective Agreement as a result of its decision that self-
defense training will not be provided. It is our
conclusion it has not been established that the Employer is
obliged Go provide the additional measures sought by the
Union in order to comply with its obligations under Article
18.1 of the Collective Agreement.
While there Was contradictory evidence with respect to
the perceptions of the safety of the Highway Enforcement
Officers where they are engaged in carrying out.their
duties, the objective evidence established three assaults
against Mr. Danbrook over a relatively short period of
time. While we agree with Mr. Peterson that the
environment in which the Enforcement Officers work does not
appear to be as potentially dangerous as the environment
in which Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Simcoe work. There is clear
objective evidence that supports Mr. Danbrook's contention
20
that there are some real risks associated with his work.
Mr. Peterson submitted that the assaults on Mr. Danbrook
could have been avoided if the techniques taught by Dr.
Polgar had been employed. It would appear that in one of
these instances, and perhaps in others, the application of
these techniques could have resulted in an avoidance of an
assault. However, we agree with Mr. Roland that it is 'not
possible to conclude that such assaults would not have
taken place. There were clearly instances of volatile
irrational behaviour. It is our-view that the facts of
this case differ significantly from the facts of the
decision referred to us by Mr. Peterson wherein the risk to
the employee was found to be only a remote possibility and
hence the protective measures requested were not found to
be mandated by a requirement for the making of reasonable
provisions for health and safety. It is our conclusion
that in light of the nature of the work that Enforcement
Officers are engaged in, and all J~f the evidence we have
heard with respect to the 'kind of confrontations Mr.
Danbrook and others have been involved in, it would be
inappropriately simplistic to accept hhat such irrational
manifestations of behaviour resulting in assaults against
Enforcement Officers could be prevented by training in non-
confrontational attitudes and identifying and withdrawing
from potentially volatile situations. While 'this training
would seem to be of clear value and is likely to have an
21
extremely positive effect in terms of the avoidance of
exposure of officers to incidents of assault, as Dr. Polgar
acknowledged, there are instances in which this type of
· response will not be effective. Given the evidence before
us, we cannot conclude that this is only a remote
possibility. It is our view that the provision of self-
defense training is an appropriate measure to deal with
what we have found to be a real risk of assault. We do not
'share Dr. Polgar's view that the provision of self-defense
.training would necessari-~y have the effect of undermining
the training in avoidance techniques. While Dr. Polgar
expressed that opinion, he did not refer to any empirical
data that would support such a conclusion. It 'appears to
us that the only real likelihood is that officers will wish
to avoid physical confrontation. There would appear to be
no reason that a direction provided in training that self-
defense techniques are to be used only in situations where
officers are attacked an~ have no oppOrtunity to withdraw
would not be understood and adhered to.
While we have concluded that the Union has established
that the provision of self-defense training is a reasonable
requirement for the health and safety of employees, we
cannot reach the same conclusion with respect to a baton.
It was the position of the Union that the wearing of a
baton would have the effect of deterring an attack.
22
Notwithstanding Mr. Lafferty's evidence with respect to his
perception as to the effect of carrying a baton, we cannot
conclude that the Union has established that the provision
of a baton is a reasonable requirement for health and
safety. The display of any weapon might deter an assault.
However, after a consideration of all of the evide~nce, and
considering the fact that training in avoidance techniques
and self-defense will now be made available We are not
convinced that it has been established that the Employer
ought to be obliged to provide employees with the option to
carry a baton. In our view there is a demonstrable
difference in the type of risk that Conservation Officers
are exposed to as compared to EnfOrcement Officers. The
fact that conservation officers have been provided with
batons does not support the conclusion that Enforcement
Officers ought to be equipped in the same manner. Given
the evidence before us and considering the fact that
Enforcement Officers are not required to arrest people', we
are also not convinced that a need for the provision of
handcuffs has been established. While there is an
expectation that persons with log book infra'ctions are to
be detained, it is clear, that the Employer does not require
Enforcement Officers to forcefully detain violators.
As well, we reject the Union's submission that the
obligation of the Employer to make reasonable provisions
23.
for the health and safety of its employees ought to compel
the Employer to staff i~s cruisers On all night shifts with
two officers. Again, the fact that such a provision is
made for Conservation Officers does not compel us to the
conclusion that the same provision is appropriate for
Enforcement Officers. Given this conclusion we will not
address Mr. Peterson's submission with respect to our
jurisdiction to make such an order.~ The assignment of two
officers to a cruiser on every night shift would have a
dramatic effect on operations, either by increasing
manpower costs or reducing the number of vehicles on
patrol. The Employer has issued instructions to the
Enforcement Officers to the effect that they have a
discretion as to whether or not they will stop a vehicle
while they are on night shift. The Employer has agreed to
assign two officers to a vehicle during periods of intense
enforcement. As well, Enforcement Officers may follow a
vehicle to a lighted area if they wish to do so. The Union
questioned whether an employee could perform an effective
job in carrying out enforcement duties in those
circumstances. Whether or not that is the case is not the
issue. The Emp?oyer is clearly entitled to provide such
direction to employees.
Accordingly, the grievance is allowed in part. It is
our conclusion that M~. Danbrook has established that self-
24
defense training is a reasonable provision for his health
and safety in the performance of his duties. In our view,
self-defense training dealing with the application of force
to pressure points of an assailant, to be used as self-
defense only when withdrawal from a confrontation is not
possible, is the kind of training that ought to be
provided. We will remain seized in the event that the
'parties experience any difficulties in the. implementation
of this decision. In all other respects the grievance is
denied.
Dated at Toronto this day 2nd of January,
S. L. Stewart- Vice-Chairperson
J. McManu s - Member
D. C. Montrose - Member