HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2889.Sullivan et al.93-04-14 ONTARIO £MPL O Y~$ DE LA COLIROIVIVE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DF- L 'ONTAR~O
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS E~TREET WEST, SUSTE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARI~. MSG ~Z8 TELEPHONE/T~L~PHONE: (4~6] 326~138B
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2~00. TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG 1Z8 FACS.~I~41LE/T~_LECOPIE ; (4 ?6) 326-1396
· N THE MATTER OF AN ARBITR~TON
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEEB COLLECTIVE BAR~H~NING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Sullivan et al)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional SerVices)
Emgloyer
B~FORE M. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson
E. Seymour Member
D. Montrose Member
FOR THE L. Yearwood
~RIEVOR Greivance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE S. Patterson
RESPONDENT Counsel
Legal Services Branch
Management Board of Cabinet
HEARING September 16, 1992
January 11, 1993
1
DECISION
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
The parties filed the following Agreed Statement of Facts at
the opening of the hearing:
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Sullivan (the "Employee") was at all material
times employed by the Ministry of Correctional Services '
(the "Ministry") as a' Correctional Officer at the Sault
Saint Marie Jail (the "Jail").
2. The duties of the Correctional Officer 2 are
described in the Job Specification attached to this
Agreed Statement of Facts at exhibit 1o
3. In the course of performing his duties at the Jail
the employee is called upon to attend at either the Gord
Saunders House (the "Home") or the salvation Army C.R.C.
(the C.R.C.")
4. The Gord Saunders House is a residence for Young
Offenders which is located at 136 Pilgrim Street in Sault
Ste. Marie Ontario. The residents of the home are young
offenders who have received a judicial sentence of Open
Custody. It is operated by an autonomous Board of
Directors and funded through grants from the Ministry.
At any time a maximum of 10 residents will be living at
the home and they will be attended~by a minimum of two
employees and usually three employees of the home.
5. Pursuant to the provisions of the Young Offenders
Ac__~, specifically section 24.2~9, it is possible to
transfer a resident from open custody, the home, to
secure custody, the Jail for a maximum of 15 days in a
number of circumstances. These circumstances are set out
in the policy attached as exhibit 2.
6, When the transfer set out above is to occur the
employees' of the home contact the shift supervisor of the
jain and request that attendance of Ministry staff at the
home to effect the transfer. The policy which dictated
the conduct of the staff of the home and ministry staff
as at June 27, 1991 is attached as exhibit 3.
2
7. 'The C.R.C. is a 'half way' house for adult offenders
in the correctional system. In general terms this
placement is the last step in the system prior to an
inmates release.
8, The Correctional Officers have a responsibility in
transferring inmates ~rom the CRC to the jail which.is
similar to that set out in paragraph 6 above. The
circumstances in which such a transfer may occur are set
out in policy attached at exhibit 4.
9. The precipitating incident to the grievance before
the board occurred on Friday June 28, 1991. The grievor
and a fellow'C.O.2, Mr. Bishop, were instructed to attend
at the home to transfer a young offender to the jail.
The two C.O.s were dispatched to the home in a Ministry
va~ which is designated for the secure transfer of
inmates. No issue lies between the parties on the design
or use of the van.
10. On arriving at the home the correctional officers
found two staff of the home and several young offenders
in the living area. The young offender who was to be
~ transferred was stuck in the window which he had tried to
climb out and was under the influence of alcohol. The
young offender was returned to the jail.
11. As a result of the above occurrence the grievor
filed a report which is attached as exhibit 5. The
Ministry, in the person .of Mr. Jude Lake, Superintendent
of the ~jail, reviewed the report and met with the
management of the home to insist on a review of the
policies on when police should be called to deal with the
behaviour of the young offenders. As a result of this
meeting and the report of the grievor and the events set
out below the policies of the home and the jail were
amended. The new policy of the jail is set out at
exhibits 6 in brief and fully in exhibit 7,
12. In August, 1991 the grievor was again instructed to
attend at the home to transfer a young offender. The
grievor initially, refused the assignment and ultimately
the grievor and two other Correctional Officers were
ordered to perform the function. Subsequest to this
situation an Inspector from the Ministry of Labour under
the Occupational Health and Safety Act, was requested to
attend at the jail and meet with the Union, the grievor
and management. The Inspector's report is attached as
exhibit 8.
13. The grievor ~equests that the local police be called
to the home or the CRC any time that a transfer is
requested.
14. The ministry takes the position that the police are
not necessary in every circumstance and that an
evaluation of the situation should be done, first by the
staff staff of 'the .home or CRC, then by the shift
s~pervisor prior'to assigning the Correctional Officers '
and finally by the Officers themselves when they attend
at the site.
The parties agreed that the Agreed Statement of Facts was also
intended to apply to Curt Bishop, referred to in paragraph 9 of the
Statement, and thi~ decision is to apply to Messrs. Sullivan and
Bishop.
Exhibit 1 referred to in paragraph 2 of the Agreed Statement
of Facts is annexed hereto as Appendix 1,
Exhibit 2 referred to in paragraph 5 of the Agreed Statement
of~Facts is annexed hereto as Appendix 2.
Exhibit 3 referred to. in paragraph 6 of the Agreed Statement
of Facts is annexed hereto as Appendix 3,
Exhibit 4 referred to in paragraph 8 of the Agreed Statement
of Facts is annexed hereto as Appendix 4.
Exhibit 5 referred to in paragraph ii of the Agreed Statement
of Facts is annexed hereto as Appendix 5.
4
Exhibit 6 referred to in paragraph 11 of the Agreed Statement
of Facts is annexed hereto as Appendix 6.
Exhibit 7 referred to in paragraph 11 of the Agreed Statement
of Facts is annexed hereto as Appendix 7.
Exhibit 8 referred to in paragraph 12 of the Agreed Statement
of Facts is annexed hereto as Appendix 8.
It was also agreed that the issue before us related to whether
the Employer, through the policies and the systems it has in place
for correctional staff escorting offenders from open custody (as in
the case of young offenders from Gord Sanders House) to secure
custody at the Sault Ste. Marie jail, has made "reasonable
provisions for the safety and health of its employees" as set out
in art.18.1 of the collective agreement. Art.18.1 of the
collective a~reement is as follows:
18.1 The Employer shall continue to make reasonable
provisions for the safety and health of its
employees during %he hours of their employment. It
is agreed that both the Employer- and the Union
shall co-operate to the fullest extent possible in
the prevention of accidents and in the reasonable
promotion of safety and health of all employees.
The Grievor, Robert Sullivan, testified as follows:
1. He was on duty on the night of June 28, 1991, when he was
assigned, together with Mr. Bishop, to attend at the Gord
Saunders House to return one or two .Young Offenders who were
"acting up" to the Sault Ste. Marie jail.
5
2. The above assignment was given to him by the shift I. C., Mr.
~idd, who gave him a short briefing that was restricted to the
limited informatio~ above referred to iD paragraph one,
3. On route to the Gord Saunders House, the Grievors were
communicated with by Mr. Kidd by two-way radio and informed
that one of the Young Offenders was stuck in a window on the
top floor of Gord Saunders House while engaged in an apparent
suicide attempt.
4. When the Grievors arrived at Gord Saunders House they observed
a chaotic situation with a number of young offenders rushing
through the house and about the yard swearing and screaming..
5. Upon entering the house, Messrs. Sullivan and Bishop were
subjected to a good deal of verbal abuse from young offenders
resident at Gord Saunders House, however, no threats to do
them physical harm were then directed at th~m at that time.
6. Mr. Sullivan asked a worker at the House where he could locate
the young offender they were to return to secure custody at
the jail and was told that he was in an upstairs room. The
Grievors proceeded upstairs and found the young offender in a
window being held onto by a worker at the House. Also present
in the room was another young offender, apparently
6
intoxicated, who appeared to be a friend of the young offender
who was stuck in the window.
7. As the friend of the young offender who was stuck in the
window, was apparently in an intoxicated state and was creating
a good deal of upset, the Grievors removed him from the room
and placed him in leg irons.
8. They then attempted to pull the young offender who was stuck
in the window back into the room, but this was not possible as
he was too firmly wedged in the window, and the Grievors were
of the view that if further attempts were made to pull ·him
into the room he might suffer injury.
9. Mr. Sullivan then observed another young offender, who had
gone outside, climbing a ladder towards the window where the
young offender was wedged. Mr. Sullivan believed that this
ladder had been placed there· by the young offender who was
climbing it.
10. When the Grievors concluded that they could not safely remove
the young offender from the window, they first attempted to
take the window apart using a screwdriver that they found on
the bed in the room, which screwdriver was between one-and-
one-half and two feet long. Mr. Su~tivan did not know who had
brought the screwdriver into the room, although be suspected
7
it was one of the inmates at Gord Saunders House. When the
Grievors concluded that they could' not disassemble the window
so as to release the youn9 offender who was stuck in it, they
asked one of the workers at the House (on three occasions) to
summon the fire department.
11. Mr. Sullivan estimated that the time that had elapsed between
the time the Grievors entered Gord Saunders House and the time
when the fire department was summoned to be approximately
fifteen minutes.
12. Mr. Sullivan also stated that the police department had been
summoned to the premises, apparently by neighbours who had
observed the young offender in the window and the ensuing
disturbance.
13. A member of the fire department climbed up the ladder that led
to the window where the young offender was stuck and removed
portions of frame so as to enable the young offender to get
back into the room.
14. The Grievors assisted the young offender to get back into the
room, and when he was in' t~e room p~aced handcuffs on him
after observing that he did not appear 'to have suffered ~ny
significant injury. They did observe he was in a very
8
intoxicated state, and it was necessary for the Grievors to
carry him to the van for removal to secure custody.
15. The Grievors secured the young offender in the back of the
van, all the while being subjected to verbal abuse and threats
from him.
16. According to Mr. Sullivan, there were approximately ten
persons, assumed by him to be neighbours, who observed the
incident from the street..
17. Because the other young offender, above referred to, appeared
to be in a very intoxicated condition and continued to direct
verbal abuse at the Grievors, they decided that he should also
be returned to secure custody. The Grievors requested the
police to'escort this young offender to secure custody, and
they did so.
18. The two young offenders were in such an intoxicated condition
that they had to be carried to the segregation area of the
jail.
19. After the above incident, Mr. Sullivan filed Appendix 5. In
apparent response to Appendix~ 5, management gave him a copy of
the policies relating to transfers from' open to secure
custody, and advised him that, in the future, more information
9
would be given to correctional officers when they were ordered
to return inmates from open to secure custody. The Grievor
was also told that procedures with respect to returning
inmates from open to secure custody would be discussed with
the operators of facilities so that the police would be
summoned at the outset in eases as above described.
Mr. Bishop description of the incident supported that of Mr.
Sullivan, and he added that furniture was also turned over by
inmates during the disturbance. Counsel for the Employer did not
take issue with the evidence given by the Grievors 'relating~to what
had taken place during the incident.
Mr. Bishop noted that some of the other young offenders
involved in the disturbance were over six feet tall and weighed
over two hundred pounds. Mr. Bishop also noted that the police had
some difficulty in restraining .the second young offender.
The only evidence called on behalf of the Employer was that of
Mr. Lake who testified that:
1. Gord Saunders House is funded by the Ministry of Correctional
Services as a phase two open custody facility for young
offenders between 16 and 18 year of age.
I0
2. Prior to the incident testified to by the Grievors, the policy
with respect to the transfer of residents from open to secure
custody at the jail was based on the provisions of s.24.2(9).
of the Young Offenders Act.
This policy is set out at Appendix 2, which is dated May 1991.
4. Mr. Lake also referred to the policy of the Sault Ste. Marie
jail relating to transfers from Open to secure custody, which
is found in ApPendix 3.
5. Mr. Lake learned about the incident of June 28, 1991 the next
day from the shift supervisor, and he also received Mr.
Sullivan's reports: Appendix 5 and Exhibit 9. The evidence of
Mr. Sullivan reflected the contents of Exhibit 9.
6. Mr. Lake stated that he was quite upset upo~ learning about
the events of June 28, and a~ranged to meet the Director, Open
Custody Facilities, after first communicating with the Area
Manager of Probation and Parole Services. He said that this
was t'he protocol to be followed, as the Area Manager was an
employee of the funding Ministry for Gord Saunders House,
7. A meeting was held with the Director, Open Custody Facilities
and the Area Manager, approximately a week after the incident,
11
for the purpose of reviewing what 'had taken place and to
ensure that omissions by the staff at the Home in following
policies and systems for returning inmates to secure custody
would not be repeated.
8. In reviewing Appendix 2 at the meeting, special attention was
placed on the last paragraph:
If a serious criminal offense is being committed, and/or
a serious disturbance is occurring, the police are to be
notified immediately to intervene.
9. Mr. Lake stated that he relied on Mr. Sullivan's reports as an
example of how the actions of the staff at Gord Saunders House
did not comply with the above directive, and emphasized that
the police should have been contacted in this case.
Mr. Lake emphasized that the Grievors were in no way at fault
in the way in which they carried' out their duties at the
relevant times..
10. A new procedure was established after the incident of June 28
so that full information would be provided to the shift
supervisor, who would, in turn, furnish it to eorectional
officers ordered to attend to remove persons from open to
secure custody, to enable them to have sufficient information
to enable them to make a judgement whether police assistance
was required.
12
11. Mr. Lake also referred to the incident in August 1991,
mentioned in paragraph 12 of the Agreed Statement of Facts.
The contents of Exhibit 8, referred to in paragraph 12 of the
Agreed Statement of Facts (Appendix 8 to this Decision), were
rendered illegible by the photocopying process, and a typed
version is contained in Appendix 8.
12. Mr. Lake was not aware' of any appeal having been brought
against the findings of the Inspector for the Ministry of
Labour (Operations Division, Occupational Health and Safety).
13. The Inspector had copies of the po]icy of the Employer with
respect to the return of persons from open. to secure custody.
14. Appendix 6, dated September 12, 1991, was prepared after the
meeting of the Inspector for the Ministry of LabouP, and was
intended to clarify the procedure to be followed in
transporting offenders from open to secure custody. He
emphasized that correctional officers could use their
discretion as to whether police should be involved in
returning a person from open to secure custody. Shift
supervisors were requi~ed to call in the police upon being
requested to do so by by the correctional officer(s) assigned
to return an inmate to secure custody where the officer(s) had
concluded tb~t this was necessary, based on the information
furnished.
13
Mr. Lake noted that usually two (never one) correctional
officers are assigned to return offenders to secure custody.
It is finally up to the correctional officers assigned to
return an offender to the institution to make the decision as
to whether police are to be called, if this has already not
been done by someone else.
15. Mr. Lake noted that there are portable radios in the vehicles
used to transport offenders that allow for instant
communication with the shift supervisor.
16. Mr. Lake.also stated that new forms had been prepared for
completion by the staff of Gord Saunders.House, which require
a clear statement of the facts leading up to the request to
return the offender to secure custody. This information would
· assist shift supervisors and correctional officers in
assessing whether police assistance was necessary.
ARGUMENT OF THE UNION
Reference was made to statements made by the Board, at pp. 19-
20 of Watts/King 1367/90 etc. (Rap]an). In the latter case two
grievances were brought by CO2's at the Niagara Detention Centre
alleging violations of art.18.1 of the collective agreement:
Counsel referred the Board to Stockwell 1764/87 (Wilson),
one of the leading cases on point. In Stockwell, the
]4
grievor alleged that the employer was not making
reasonable provisions for her health and safety under
Article 18.1 of the Collective Agreement. Very simply,
the facts in this case were that the grievor, a
Correctional Officer, was locked in a van in the secure
portion with one or more inmates as the inmates were
being transferred from point A to point B. In these
circumstances, the union argued that if there were an
accident and the driver of the van was incapacitated, the.
grievor and the inmates she was escorting would be locked
in with no way of escape. This, she argued, was contrary
to the employer's Collective Agreement responsibility.
Counsel in the Stockwell case, (as in the instant one),
submitted that there were two issues to be determined:
first, whether there was a risk, and second, whether the
employer had acted in accordance with .the Collective
Agreement. The Board in Stockwe~l reviewed the
jurisprudence, including OPSEU (Union Grievance) 69,
70/84 (Samuels) where the Board held that:
Article 18.1 'speaks of reasonable provisions for
the safety and health of the employees. And this
is echoed in section 14(2)(g) of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act, which imposes a duty on an
employer to "take every precaution reasonable in
the circumstances for. the protection of a
worker...There is no obligation to guarantee an
employee's safety against every possible risk, no
matter how remote the possibility that it will
occur. The collective agreement and the
legislation contemplate "reasonable"
precaution...It is necessary to balance the safety
of the employees against the need for care and
custody of the inmates and the purposes of the
institution. Proper planning can reduce the
potential or likelihood Of incidents, but it is not
possible to eliminate all conceivable risks (at 6-
8). (emphasis as in the original)
Reference was also made to the statements of the Board at
pp.26-27 of Watts/King:
The employer has an 'obligation to take reasonable
precautions for the safety and health of its employees.
Like other panels of this Board, we are of the view that
"reasonable" does not mean "every." And we are also of
the view that what is reasonable wi]] depend greatly on
the facts of each case, and must involve a ba]ancing of
15
interests of the employees and the employer. In the
instaat case, the fact that no employee has been attacked
or injured while conducting a patrol is neither here nor
there in the same way that the concerns raised in the
Stockwell case had not taken place. It is obvious that
the potential for injury exists.
In our view, it is not unreasonable in a case where the
union has demonstrated some degree of risk to the safety
and health of employees to require the employer to
explain, if not justify, the necessity and reasonableness
of that employer-imposed risk. In a safety and health
matter it is simply not sufficient for the employer to
state that it believes a certain amount of increased risk
is necessary without taking the next step and
convincingly explaining why. A failure to take this next
step leads to the conclusion in the instant case that
while the employer considers increased patrols desirable
(and some reasons were given in support of this
position), it has not fully turned its attention to the
potential safety and health consequences of the increase
in patrols for its employees, nor has it carefully
assessed whether such an increase conforms to the
requirements of Article 18.1.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENT
1. Counsel for the Employer did not dispute the test as
enunciated in the cases above referred to.
2. It was submitted that the Employer had met the obligation
placed on it to take reasonable precautions for the health and
safety of its employees. Reference was made to the po]icy and
its refinement for the necessary balance .to be achieved
between the interests of employees and the Employer, as is
referred to in the final paragraph at p.26 of the Watts/King
ease. Counsel for the Employer acknowledged that either
because of a lack of know]edge of the Employer's policy, or
16
because of a failure to fo]iow it, the incident of June 28,
1991 "went awry." However, counsel noted that the Union did
not ask for a remedy that would require a declaration that the
Employer's actions with respect to the June 28 incident
represented a violation of art.18.1 of the collective
agreement, but asked for a declaration that the Employer's
policies and the systems it has in place with respect to the
movement of inmates from open to secure custody do not
represent a "reasonable provision for the safety and health of
its employees." In addition, the Union sought a remedy that
would address the alleged failure on the part of the Employer
to meet its art. 18.1 obligations in the circumstances
described.
3. Counsel for the Employer submitted that the Employer has to
transport offenders from open to secure custody in certain
circumstances and that when it is called upon to do so it has
an obligation to evaluate and address the risks to its
employees in carrying out the transportation obligations.
4. It was the submission made on behalf of the Employer that it
had, by its policies and procedures, recognized the risk to
correctional officers ordered to return inmates to secure
custody by introducing a graduated level of responses.
17
DECISION
We were not asked to concern ourselves with any errors that
might have been made in carrying out the emergency transfer from
open to secure custody in a single instance, We are required to
examine the policies and systems established by the Employer in
order to assess whether management has taken reasonable steps and
has effected a proper balancing of its interests and those of
correctional officers employed by it in its policies and systems.
The evidence disclosed that steps have been taken to ensure
that proper information is 'obtained by persons responsible for
dispatching correctional officers to return inmates to secure
custody so that the Officers will not have to carry out their
responsibilities without adequate knowledge of what they might
encounter.
Exhibit 6 makes it clear that m correctional officer is
entitled, using his or her discretion, to take the necessary steps
to see that the police are called in. Unless there is insufficient
information, or where the information indicates that police
assistance may be necessary, i~ is not a reasonable requirement
that police be called in where an inmate is to be transferred from
open to secure custody. As long as a correctional officer is
18
entitled to obtain a reasonable summary of the situation that
exists at the place where the offender is located, and,. failing
receipt of this.information, can ask for police assistance, or can
do so where the information reasonably indicates the necessity of
having police summoned, the reasonable balance between the
interests of the employees and Employer referred to will have been
achieved. It is not reasonable to require that the police be
called in in every case. Such cases are reserved for situations
when the facts disclose a significant risk to the officer(s)
assigned to return an inmate to secure custody, or when the _facts
are insufficient to permit a reasonable assessment of risk.
Accordingly, the grievances are denied.
We emphasize that we are not dealing with a case where we have
been asked to find a breach of art 18.1 based on a departure from
a policy or syst'em, but to find whether the policies and systems of
the Employer now in place with respect to the return of inmates to
secure custody place the Grievors at risk in breach of the
requirements of ~ha~ article.
Dated at Toronto this 14th day of April, 1993. ·
M. R. Gorsky - Vice Chairperson
E. Seymour - Member
D. Montrose - Member ' -"
%.~u~/(... >~_ ~t-'~'~uJ_Z~ .L ZFlete~-to,' ~. ~ form
'cells 'and other trill is,~ired~ keeping log ~ecord, of cour't and e~t activities;
idvis/aq l~atas o~ their rtgh~, and ob~Lge~oasj. '~j~/counsell~
· or other ictLun, conduct~ ~ndustr~, or hahav~ou~ of t~ltal'F efcortln~ ~atel; issuing
o~/ade~ata c~=euento only] contrLbu~nq to ~nmato adj~e~ont by pe~lo~a~ exile o~
e~ch., dress, conduct, pfocoao~'fl~ loaatea ~1, ~orward~ng inu~ re.eats to appropriate
~aonnel or h~dl~ng personally, oupe~Laing l~a~es during re~atton,
· vis~ts, etc. processing ~ates on a~tss~on/disc~rgo ~ncludtng ~or~fying c~tal
.~l~o~iag o~. ~lated duties ~o l~atl safety, security etc.
maintaining =eeoZd. o~ the [Isue ~d ~tu~ of keys, kee~n~ ~ar[oue
log~, la~r~ l~g~ t~ate location, receiving ~d dl~acting' visitors, con~roll~ng
~ate/etl~/vist~r'mov~ on the basso a~ authorilation, issuing 9reFer receipt,
' control ~d tssoO o~ ~atl"w ~flay, personal property; .... ove~
.ece~tF ta~n~qual an~' ~ui~a~t and ~st a~d ..... over .
...: ,. :"~"~ '",,.:,. ,:~,
~' ~' ' : , ' :. . ', · ~ · · .. ',, "L' ;' ::; " ,'
I:" ''
· ~[ . . . ~,..~,~- :, .,., ..,..
' ' ' ~ · ' ' ' 'l ~,1
~ : . ~ . ., ..., . ~ ~ .......
- 'Ins~ons for ood~ P~l~flon Id~nu~; Ins;uotlon~ for oodiflg Siii~
r~ ;, ~ ~t~ . .o~ ., M~,. ~'.~.
~[, . F~ ' ' ~ , ~., ' ~,,' ,., ';,'~.,.
~) gl~ ~ WM ~ ~"~ , ",,-',,. ' '",'
~.~~~ .... ~.,, .
.,~ . . ,. . ~'~',~;, ~:~.
Oi~ 7' " "' --.~ ," " ., ' ,.
f.f~lM~fl'- ; '' '.,, ,'... -' '
~TE: TM ~ M the tcm~ ~m ~.d ~# ~mm) ovw 4 ~q~l mnN~NO
.. . ~
p~ :~ ~~ T~ i',1 ',:.... ;. '"' ": ""' ":' :"' ''''~''
'
- ~mlaulatl~g ~ne., ~d .eu~enoBSt resolving ~%no mone~l m~k~ng ~d~"o~ Lns~t~tOn '~nd ,,'"
grounds to check fo: ~rregul~rtt~es~ ~rtvlng lnotttutton vehtcla
~bil~t¥ ~o recogn~a~'al~d react to abnormal litu&~ons, hehaviour, .etc, Ab~!~ty t~ ~o~k rotating
ah~ts l~ an ~nst~tutio~al. ~nv~ro~ent, ~b~l~t~ to ~se Jude~nC a~ tact. ~n
~ ~ . :. ·
' ' ' ·.,"
~i - ~ ' '.'~' .~.'. ' ..... " .... ' .
.. ',1.~.' ,':. ' , ........
) ~ ...~,~' ~ , ~'1 . ' '
'~ e · · · Ministry of ( ~ APPI~IDIX
' m~ F~ ' m * '~ (-: .... DIRECTIVE
" ' '~V C~rrectJonal
~... ~ ~ ~ .' Se~ic~ ~07~
..... ~~: --~ .... . ......, .......... -
.~ ~.~ ~:.. ..~ ~'-~ ~~~:,.:.
... ..... ,.,~.'m.~L~ ~.~__. ~..~~ r~.,~.~. ~ ~
. :. :.~ .~ :,,.~-- ~~~~ ~ .~ ~..-.. .
. .,,,. Suo[~ ........ .,~., ~~ ~O~
........ .. .
. , .. · ...... 7~~.~, 7~.~Z.'rC
~~&~..:.:~..?---: .- .. . .
- ' ~OO~O~
~~ A ~rovincial Director may authorize
transfer of a younq person from
- ~ custody to secure custody for a period
not to exceed 15 days under s.24.2(9)
of the Younc 0ffander~ Act
This t'~e., of tr~ns=__~=- ~s used ~c ensur~
tke safer-! and security of
residence and =ka wel!-beinq cf eack
ycunq Derscn in cus==dy. Aqancy open
,, : cus~cdy staff communicate tke de~ai!s
of the incide~ ~o the Provincial
Director for aut~criza=ion durinq
off,ca hcurs and ca!! ~he nearest
. secure custody f~ci!!~v d!rec~!v after
hours.- ~n response, the Superintendent.
'responsible for ~ediately arranqinq
t~e' mcs~ expedien~ ramov~l and
trans~cr=ation of ~e v~un~ Der~cn
open to secure cusp=dy.
A ~r=nsfer from c~en t= secure cust~d,f
is a iasc r~scrn measur~ undern~ken
qnly after all c~.er cpuicns have been
'{',~.~' exhausn~d. It is no. ~ to be used
f fo~ of .discipline' by open ~as~ody
s~aff.
/ If a serSous cr~inai offenc~ is being
cu~in~d, and/or _a serious dis~ancs
mo~ifie~ /~ediata!v Uo ~n~e~ene.
:~.?....~:~ :?.'!:~.~7 residen=s and s=aff will be primary
~.. -. _ . _:
~-~,~- fac=ors in t-he decision to conduct t~hi~
~'4 '..~.' . '~.~....
i~.'b?.~c'~, se~re ~usCcdV s=aff, Full ' ''
~--~---..~ ~=..-.Co,unica=ion between all p~ies is
%~ ~.~';."?" essential to ensue the safety cf the
~J:-%-~'~:7: =->. young person and the remaining
· residen=s.
'~._u.:-. - .... I= is also essen~ia! ~a= con, unica=ion
~.-~R :~:;:~ -... between Provincial Direc=crs or
'" delega=as =aka place as soon as
~$~(~ possible and preferably ~he next
'.-. ~ working day =o review the removal
'~)~ decision, to deta~ine the length cf
~D~ sUay, and to e~edita the return of the
· - young person =o open cus=cdy. Facility
and 99en Cusn.ody Liaison Officers and
=he O~en Custody Direc=or should be
.~ involved in ~his assessment. In some
cases, yo~q persons may nc= ~e
suitable for p!acemen= back in the
c._g_na_ residence and a new plan mush
be developed for p!acemen=.
Onqcing eva!uaticn cf emergency
effacnivezess cf local arrangements
essanuiai.
For the Dur?csa cf ~h!s prccadure, the
Pray!ncaa! Dirsc~ur may de!agaue
under s.24.2(9) YOA t~ cuber positions
ac ..... c .... f.
)Den
Staff. i. Repcrn incident to the Open
Cusncdv Oirac~cr invc!ving any ycunq
cerscn esc~in? cr au%am~c%ng
escape cr :~here z~e sa=at'f cf ~he
ycunq person cr c=ker vcung cer~cns
~= ~ecTardized.
Lcca! safeu'; and sacurit'f urocsdur~s
ar~ cbsar';e~ ~ ensure the
.... -':~-~. ~ :-~ ~~-:.~'=.".t~:r-,',..~--:: ~'- ' Superin~nd~ '
.-...::,,~r~9-~ ........ . ...... .. , .,. ·
.~ ~.~:.~,~:...~-. -: ._r.. ~,.. . . ' .
..... -- .... ~.--~.~ ........... · · Follow. l~ca! procad~es for recording
behav~ou=
'(.~,~;~'; -'~' ~.'",~i , .'.-..~. v.= ,-..~ ~ /- e ........
" ~s~y scarf fi. De~cri~e ~e situation fully t~
~. - esc:r~ officers u~on their arrival
· - at ~he residence.
To prevent escor~ officers from
entering an unknown situation, open
cusnody s~aff must inform ~hem if
the young person
transfer and the anticipated
reach!on.'
NOT~
In scme cases, due t: fear cf reprisal
, " or escape risk, staff may defer
informing the young person of the
transfer until the arr~v2! of ~he
esccr~ cff!cer~, in 'these situanlcns
open cus=.ody staff wiTM advise the
escurn officers cf this fact.
IF A YOUNG P~SON IS UND~ CONTROL
Agency Open-
Custody Staff 6. identify the young ~er~cn named
cn ~he warran~ ns the esccrn
Offlcsr~.
Provide all ra!aUad documenna=icn
inc!udinc nne oricina! Warranc of
C~mminma! =u =he=~r__-_ ~ officers
. ~ .-.:~..~-~-~,.~..~:.'-.~,~:~ ............ F..::-. residents and $~af~ will
...~ .~.. *.~ ~.' ~ ~~.~. ~.. .... ·
· ~,. ~=~~~~-~_ .-.,. ., , must ~e involved in cocrdinatin=
· ~'~-.--,-= .~u~, ....... ~~ -~- ~ r~ova! of ~e voun= pe=~D Ail
. .. ...... ,~R.~,~-,~.~=~.~.-~.- ..... ' ...... ~ se~re c~scodv s=a~f. FUll - '
......... ' '"'~' ...... ~---'='~P~ .... '-' ...... co--unica=ion be=ween all par~ies
~..~~.~:~:=:~,'.~'~=-~-~-, .~ ..~c.,-'-.r=- - essen=ia! to ensur~ =he safety of the
:~i~~~,.:~r~~:~%~".:~T~' :Wr,:: '--~' young person and the rmmaining
..... ~.r~=.=:~ .......................... residents.
..~~~?~T~ ~.. g.%.f?y:--p~'.. ~". It is also essential =ha~ co=unication
... ?~..~...u= possible and praferably ~e next
.-:..-.-.- '~.~,..~-. ' ": .--. ,~. working day =o review the removal
" '~ '." [~)~ decision, Uo deta~ine the leng~h~ cf
:_ - ~ stay, and to .e~edita the return of the
~ ~ .- young person to open cusncdy. Faci!i~y
' and Open .Cusncdy Liaison Officers and
~' the Open Custody Direcnor ~hould
~ ~ involved in this assessment. In some
cases, yo~q perscn~ may not ~e
su_~ab__ for p!acemen~ back in the
cr_q,na_ residence and a new plan must
~ ~e deve!cped for p!acmmenn.
0ngcing eva!uaticn cf emeruency
tr~nafar pr=csdura-s tc determine the
effacUlveness cf !cca! arrangements
" " essen~iai.
For the purpose cf this DrccedurR, the
Pr~vincia! Di~-=~-cr may deleca=a
undem s.24.2(9} YOA =c ocher 9csi=icns
in ~he s~"-=
PRO~~
Agency Open
~d~r $~f~. i. Re.ucrt incident To the Open
Cus=cdv Oirac=_~r invc!vinq any young
person esc.-Tin? cr aunam_uning to
escaue cr whe-= ~= safany cf the
ycung person cr ocher ycung persons
is jecpar/izeC.
Lcca! safauv an~ security procedures
ar2 otser';ed ts ensura t~e care and
' ".':'...:~~~=~~~~:sSe=e isolation ~de= ~is se~ion of
:'~ .r":~ ~~r~.~~-~?,,~e You~= 0~eu~ers A~. The
~~i=~... ~. ~-~-~ ~r-.. ...... a~ission. If ~ yo~g person is
.. ~:~ ~i~..:.' .-v · ·
,:;T;~:~[~,:.~".'""..:,"' .'. ' " ~sola~on ~! ~e c=~s~s ~s over
[*'.~.~~-.:.~S~??.'.7.:~.r.. ~.%-""~"..-:=-~r.: =.'.'..-:-'. :: ~he need for sec,=a isolation has
· :..~:.;.k~z~,~ ,;; ;?,... _. , ...... ,.,..._,. :~ ~.. ........
,'~:?~'.$~ ::.- .... '-:" '. - ',-tz- .'- ...... passed. (See also YOA
"~:;:~??:~}~=z~'. :--:.' - '-~ .... ;.;:'-:':T': '-[~-. Po!icy a~d Procedures Manual
.... .. ....... 04
~ ~g~[ Il. Com,!eta and send a Transfer of
~ional ~~ Responsibility (fo~ ~71-9953 )
(~O) Provincial Director wiuh a copy
~' ~o~cial Uhe Reqiona! Office .~D:
P._ua__ and faxcom an incident
Re~cru (fu~ ~71-99!0) =o Regicna!
Office.
.. Fo!iow Main 0ffic~ requirements for
, " su~mit=inq Inciden= Re~crn~.
Briefly record the nanur~ of
incidenn, a description of the younq
per~on~s behaviour and ~he ra~iona!e
for ~e transfer.
12.Review the incidenn ~he next
wcrkinq day.
In consultation wi~h The
Open Custody Liaison Officer and
da~a of r~=urn cc open cusnudy and
. .~_ -h_n ~
arrange for urunsDcr~azicn ~ ~ ~ _5
days.
DELEGATION OF DUTIES ~D PoWF_RS OF PRO~NC~ D~CTOR FOR
~R~S pursuant =o para,apb 45(1) (a) of ~e Minist~ of
~he Min!sZer cf Correc=iona! Se~ices may appcin~ any
person as a provincial dirmc=or;
· ~ AND WH~R~_AS by a designation dated ~he 1st day of. April,
1985, I have '~een designa=a~ as a provincial director Uo
· perform the duties and functions of a provincial director
for ~/%e purposas of sec'-ion 24.2(9) of the Youn= Offender~
Act (Canada) S.C. I980-8!-82, c.!!0;
THiR~!OR!, I heraby de!egaUa to. ~ke position
of the aunhority Uo perform all
~he duties' and funcnions of a provincial director for the
purDose of section 24.2(9) of the Ycunc Offenders Acc
(Canada} subjecn =o ~he .following
conditions:
.... , auuhcr uy may nc~ de!eqat-=-d !ewer ~han the position of
Shift Supervisor or be further delagatad.
DATED'.~he dav.. of , 19
~ f ~PENO~X "2"
~-'.~----~ Ministry'of Minist{~re des ~,.o.
Corre~iona[ Se~ices s~t
,', 'Se~ices ca~e~ionneis Psa
'Ontado
' ~t S~. ~ P~ de Telephone; (708) ~al T T~l~e: (~) ~17
~o~~
~-./'
TO: Shif~ Suge~isors ,./
· ~M: R. F~T~ - DE~ SU~E~ENDENT
DA~; J~e 27, 1991
8~CT: Tr~sfers - Open to Secure
Please note ~e attached Directive on =rans~ers o~ Young Offenders
~rom open custody to =he jail. ~ough the directive is e~licit
In con=ant, we had a meeting las~ week in order =o agply ~e policy
to local Drocedures. The following ~oints were clarified:
1. Co~s~lor a= Gord Sanders House will call ~e jail ~d ask
=or ~e Shif~ su~e~isor ~ order to e~lain ~e si=ua=ion. The
Counsellor will ask for ~e jail staff to =ransfa= an o~fender from
open =o secure custody.
~. The Shift SuDe~isor will decide on two or more Correctional
Officer~ to complete the transfer. Restraints will be taken in one
of our secure vehicles.
3. The Correctional Officers will go to ~he back door of the Gord
Saunders Housm and meet an on-duty 'Counsellor. Restraints will be
used in order to tran~po~ ~e offender. The Counsellor will tell
the Correctional Officers if the Young Offender ~nows about the
trans f er.
4. At no time are staff from the Gord Saunders House to transport
~e offender to the jail ~emselves.' A Transfer of Responsibility
fo~ will be completed and accompanied by Open Custody Warrant of
C.om~i=tal when the Yo~g Offender is ratu~ed to the jail. An
Incident or Occurrence Repo~ may ~e appropriated at this time,
however, due to ~e urgent nature of ~e Young Offender's removal,
~is may no= ~e practical ~d ~us may follow a= a later time (ia:
next day).
5. The counsellor will dateline whether or not the mol!ce are to
be s~oned. If so, t~e Dolice may arres= the offender and take
him to th~ police station for processing. The Counsellor will call
the Dolice if necessa~I. If the police press c~arges, but do not
remove ~e offender, the Counsellor may scill wanu Cmrractiona!
Officers to trmnspo~ the offender.
$. It is =he responsibility of =he counsellor =o consult wit~ the
Director of t_he Gord Saunders House. In ~, ~e Dir~or will
con=a~ ~e Prov~cial Direc=or (~ea M~ager). A= ~e
~e Shif~ Supe~isor will r~pond ~o ~e re~e~ of ~e Co~selio~
~d conta~ ~e on call pe~on ~ o~er =o advise h~/her of
7. The Shirr Supe~tsor will colle~ ~e repo~s from staff,
complete his/her repo~ ~d leave ~e do~ts for ~e
Offender Unit ~ager who will f~ ~e s~e to ~e ~ea M~ager
· '~:- .prior to .0845 ho~s ~e ne~ working day. ~e ~ea Manager will
include ~ese docents wi~ repo~s received from ~e Gord
· ~-]'~' '+ Sa~der~ House and respond to Regional O~fice (N).
"~% '~' .'8. The ne~ day, ~e Director (desi~ee) of ~e Gord Saunders
· . ' Housa will review ~e cir~=~ces, liaise wi~ ~e ~ea Manager
~d Superintendent, inte~iew the Yo~g Offender, and 'decide on
re=u~ing h~ =o ~e Gord Sanders House or remaining in secure
custody. If ~e Yo~g Offender is ~o retu~, ~e Gord Sanders
'~ouse staff will a~ange ~e transpo~ation.
9. The decision.to house ~e Yo~q Offender in crisis management
or on the Young Offender Uni~ is wi~ ~e Shift Supe~iscr. The
Young Offender Unit Manager will inta~iew ~e Young Offender daily
and liaise wi~ ~e Director of ~he Go~d Saunders rHouse On his
retu~ to open ~stody.
Per: R. ~ FLETCHE~ - DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
RF/am
cc J. Lake
G. Bertolo
g. Tighe
L. Honsberger - Area Manager P/P
L. Kinghorn - Director, Gord Saunders House
File
Correctional ~'.,..a'nunity Resource Centre (.
Services
On~ano Pblicy and Procedures Manual su~i~ ~m~
CRC 08 02 01
Section Da~e
Major Behaviour In_fl-_actiom March 1990
TA Pei'mit Condition Infracfio~ 4
PROCEDI. FRE
CRC/CRA Staff 1, After becoming aware of a possible TA Permit breach,
attempt to verify incident by a preliminary investigation.
2. When breach is verified, notify the house Director
immediately of the incident, ff Director is _not
available, not/gy the appropriate minisu'y official.
3. Irt the case of a TA resident who is ualawSally-a.t-Iarge,
and the CRC/CRA Director or on-call person rs not
available, mediately inform the appropriate ministry
official allowing a period of grace of30. minutes at the
very latest.
4, Make the appropriate notation irt the residence log and
follow up wt~ an Occurrence Repor~ to the Director of the
residence. .
5. If situation is hostile or violent, contact the local
olice immediately, then contact the Superintendent or
esignate of the affiliated imfimtion.
6. When a violation of the terms and conditions of the~TA
Permit is suspected, contact the o. ffiliated institution
immediately.
7. ff the situation is not hostile or violent, but return to
' the imtitation is deemed necessary by the Director, a
verbal request to the Superintendent or designate will be
i_rdtiated.
8, When a resident is removed fa'om CRC/CRA, submit an in/t/al
Occurrence Report to the Residential Director.
'Agency Director 9, Submit a formal Occurrence Report to the Superintendent of
the affiliated imtimtiort.
Correctional Commllni~ R.esOl/l'Ce Centre
Oma~o Services POliCy and ?=oceduzes Manual su=i~ Numt~er
CRC 08 02 01
Se~ion Date
Major Bchaviour Infi.actioas March 1990
Subject Page
TA Permit Coadition Tn~a.c~ions
Superintendent . When the removal of TAP inmate is deemed necessary,
dispatch a vehicle to the residence with 2 correctional
officers and return the imnate to the institution, as soon
as possible.
. In any return to_ ins.titution, initiate investigation of
inddent immediately.
. In order to return an inmate to the institution fi.om a
CRC/CRA; the TA Permit is'to be suspended or withdrawn.
Superintendent . Submit au incident report to the Regional Director on the
occun'ence with a copy to the CRC/CRA Director.
Regional Director/ . Investigate any dispute between a CRC/CRA Director and
Designate a Superintendent with regard to the return of an irtmate to
an imtitution, and rule on the issue.
Regional Director Possible outcomes of Regional Director's ruling:
inmate would remain at the affiliated institution with the
TA Permit revoked, or
inmate would be returned to the residential program.
. "_ .......... :; ...... Institution Use Only
....... · .., J,'~ ,'.'.~,2.,~.. ' ... ... . Oc~u~ncm
.Date an~ T~e c~ Oc~mnca Da~e ~d T~e Rep~
~ C Officer
Detailed S~a~ of Oc=u~mnce
S~a~z Continued (Over)
Repo~ R~viewed By:-' Investigation Si~a~ur~ cf
(Na=e and ~-~ e)._ ~_ Re=c~inq. Officer:
To Sup_~rin=enden= In$=i~J~=ion
,' .-~Z,--.~.~'---~- ......................... ' ' ~-~ ~ '.<'~,.: z- T~}_ ='' '""
T!rpe of Oc_-n~L-rence ..................
· Date and T{~e of'Occurrence Date and Time Repcr~ Submitted
~ca~ion of Oc~ence "- N~e ~d Title of Re~o~ing
C~ ~ o~ficer (~rint)
S~a~r C===inued (Over)
Reviewed By:" Investigation ~ Si~at'ar~ of
and Title) , ~~Repc~ing. Officer:
Ministryof Mk .'~bre des ~,.o.
145 MCN~=~b S~'eet 1451 rue Md;abb
Correctio Sewices Saul( ste. ie, on io
Se ices correction nels
Ontario
SauJ~ S~e. ~de P~is~ Oe T~eph~e: (705) 2~8
Jail Saull S[e, M~rie F~imile: (705) 942-9773 T~t~pieur: (705) ~42.9773
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shift Supervisors
FROM: R. Fletcher
Deputy Superintendent
DATE: September 12, 1991
Meeting with Ministry of Labour in regards to Right
for Refusal to Work.
Last week, Mr. Lake and I met with local 608, O.P.S.E.U.
Regional Representative and Mr. M. Gignac, of 'the Ministry of
Labour Occupational Health and Safety Section.
The discussion with. the party's was mutually agreeable in
order .to clarify issues related to transporting offenders from
community residence back to the institution. The local had
submitted a grievance, under Article 18.1 of the collective
agreement after an incident had occurred at the Gord Saunders
· House. Since this occurrence, You have received direction from Mr.
Ed Tighe-Y.O. Manager and me. Although the procedure remains the
same, please note the following interior agreement while we await
a policy decision from a joint committee on the same topic.
1. Send up to three Correctional officers to the C..R.C. or
Gord Saunders House if you receive a request from them to
return an offender.
2. The Correctional officer will use their discretion in
whether or not the POlice should be involved.
3. If the Correctional officers call you by radio for police
'~" backup, you are to contact the police and let the
counsellor at the house know.
4. Let the on call person informed.
I am enclosing the brief from Mr. Gignac. He has explained to
us that the Right for Refusal to Work does not apply in these
circumstances. However, you are to follow through as per my
previous memo on the Right for Refusal to Work.
· ~'--"" Ministry of Mit;.,,~re des ~.o. s~'
J
145 Mc...Nabb Street 145, rue McNabb
Corre~ional Se~ices SauitSte. ~rie, On~io Sa~ftSm. ~ie
' Se~ices corre~ionnels P~ 5~ P6A 5L8
Ontario
$ault S~. ~tie P~i~n de TeleDhone: (705) 254~817 T~lephone ' (705) 254-6817
Jait $~lt Sm. ~e Fa~imi~e: (705) 942-9773 TO~p~eur: [705) 942-9773
Page 2
In the meantime, the grievance on Article 18.1 stands for
processing through the grievance procedure.
As soon as we are informed of any change in policy on this
topic we will let you know. I ask that you confront me if you have
any questions.
Thank you.
MR. /R.. FLETCHER
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
~ Sault Ste. Marie Jail
RF/ma
cc: J. Lake
G. Bertolo
E. Tighe
C. Bishop
file
_ SAULT STE. ~IE JAIL i ~IAN. 0~/
(24.2{9})
The Provincial Dirmctor (in this case, the Area Manager of Probation
and Parole Se~ices) or his desi~ate'(including Open Custody staff)
can au~orize ~e transfer of a Y.O. from open custody to secure
custody for a period not to exceed 15 days under Section 24.2(9)
Y.O.A.
This t~e of transfer is not to be used as a disciplina~ measure.
It may be used. if:
'(a) a young person escapes or attempts to escape lawful
custody-; or
(b) the transfer is necessa~ for the safety .of the
young person or the safety of others in the place
of .open custody.
Should such a call come in to our jail on afternoon or niqht shift
or on ~e weekend, the shift supe~isor should proceed as follows:
1. He should confi~ ~at the pemson calling has the authority
au~orize such a trmnsfer (the person calling should be the Area
Manager or his designate or Open Custody staff.
2. He should get the pa~iculars of the situation and keeping in
mind that this is an emergency transfer, should brief and dispatch
two co~ectional officers to the open custody residence at 136
Pilgrim Street as soon as possible.
The officers, one of whom should be a youth officer if it
feasible, are to ensure that they have all the necessa~ restraints
with them that they might re~ire. ~at restraints are re~ired if
any, will be a decision made on the .site.
The area manager has re~ested that we use the parking lot in
back of the residence and that we use the back entrance for these
transfers.
3. The young offender will be returned to our Y.O. unit and
a~itted. Placement will be established when he ~eturns to the unit.
~ ainistry~... ~' Standing Orders
SAULT STE. ~IE JAiL
4. A~itting youth officers will treat the Y.O. as if ~e were a new
~a~it, however no new n~er is issued and they will not finge~rint,
al~ough t~ey will photogra~h ~e ,young offender.
5. The doc~ents necessa~ to an a~ission under 24.2(9) Y.O.A.
are: ~. ~ original warrant
2. Transfer of Responsibility
3. ~ occurrence repo~
At the time of the emergency trmnsfer the open custody residence may
,not be ~le to readily produce ~e original warrant or the transfer
Or responsi~ility. They are allowed ~e n~ working
~at they must provide at the time of transfer is an occurrence
repo~ detailing th~ precipitating incident and/or reasons for
t~ansfer, any reco~ended sacurity precautions and ~o~ behavioral
and medical problems.
6. The ne~ working day, it is our responsibility to notify Offender
Classification and Transfer of all movement to and. from our unit
~der Section 24.2 (9).
Sec~ion 52 (3) ~.C.S.
Under Section' 52 (3) M.C.S. Act a young offender being held in open
custody under P.O.A. cmn be transferred to secure custody. This
would occur in cases where ~e director of ~e Open Custody residence
had conce~s about the Young Offender's security and safety.
PROCED~E
The' director the open custody facility would call the Provincial
Director or Superintendent - Sault Ste. Marie Jail to make
arrangements for the transfer and the Superintendent would then
notify
Doc~entation re~ired would be: (1) Original P.O.A. warrant
(2) Occurrence repo~
(3) A statement indicating what section of the act
is being invoked (e.g. 52(3) MCS.).
This is a sentence under P.O.A., full earned remission and pro rata
fine calculations are implicit.
1
,.__~ ("' APPEb'DiX '8' ('
Ministry of Legal Services Branch Room 228 Telephone: (416) 325-9393
Frost Building South Fax: (416) 325-9404
the Attorney Management Board O.~e,~s Park
General Secretariat Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1Z5
Ministbre Direction des services juridiques Bureau 228 T~i~phene: (416) 32519393
Edifice Frosl sud Tblt~copieur: (416) 325-9404
du Procureur Secretariat du Queen's Park
gbnpral Conseil de gestion Toronto (Ontario)
M7A 1Z5
Sanuary 12, 1993 Direct Line: 325-9396
Joan Shirlow
Registrar RECEIVED
Grievance Settlement Board
Suite 2100
180 Dundas Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 17.8 CROWN EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT
Dear Ms. Shklow BOARD
Subject: OPSEU (Sullivan) and
Ministry of Correctional Services
GSB file no. 2889/91
· Further to the hearing into the above matter, held on January 12, 1991
I am forwarding this letter to your anention to provide the Vice-Chairperson, Mr.
Gorsky with certain information which he requested. By copy of this letter I am also
providing the same information to Mr, Yearwood of the OPSEU who acted for the
grievor in this matter. I would appreciate your cooperation in forwarding this letter
to Mr. Gorsky as well as providing copies to the other members of the panel Mr.
Montrose and Mr. Seymour.
The contents of exhibit 8, which were rendered illegible by the
photocopying process are as follows:
"A concern was raised with regards to Correctional Officers having
to restrain young offenders outside the City Jail Facility and the
application for potential violence.
An incident occured which may have put a correctional officer in
danger while attempting to remove a young offender from a
residential group home.
Since the incident occured some policy and procedures have changed
eg, approach house from from door and and it is also the correctional
officers option to call the local Police Department for appropriate
back up if the situation warrants.
Management encourages the use of the local Police Department at the
Correctional Officers discretion.
Sect, '23. Right to Refuse Work Correctional Officer do not have the
right to refuse work as dictated in sect. 23 (1) (a) and Co). However
management must take reasonable precautions to protect workers. As
(I cannot decipher this word) it's reasonable for the correctional
officer to have the police department as back up ff needed.
Reminder to post a copy of the report in .the workplace."
The above is the most accurate rendering I am capable of given the
state of the photocopies. I am also not able to find a better copy from which to
make a transcription.
Please contact me if you have any problems with this request or il
the panel has any problems. Thank you for your cooperation.
Yours truly, ~...
Counsel
cC. Lester Yearwood
Jude Lake