HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-2779.Jenkins.17-04-13 Decision
Crown 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#2015-2779
UNION#2015-0369-0034
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Jenkins) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ian Anderson Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Gregg Gray
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER David Marincola
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING April 11, 2017
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-
Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated protocol. The majority of
the grievances are normally settled pursuant to that process. However, if a
grievance remains unresolved the protocol provides that the Vice Chair of the
Board, based on the evidence provided during the mediation session, will
immediately decide the grievance. The decision will be without reasons, without
precedent and prejudice and will be issued within fifteen working days of the
mediation unless the parties agree otherwise.
[2] On April 11, 2017 the parties at the Central North Correctional Centre agreed to
participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the
negotiated protocol.
[3] The Grievor filed a grievance dated August 25, 2015 alleging a breach of the
Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy, Articles 2.1 (Management
Rights) and 3.1. In this case, because a human rights issue was raised, the
parties asked that brief reasons be provided.
[4] The facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The Grievor is a long
service correctional officer. At various times, he has submitted medical notes
from his doctor, Dr. Woods, to substantiate his absence for various periods of
time due to medical reasons, all of which were accepted by the Employer. He
provided a note from his doctor dated July 7, 2015 to substantiate absence for
medical reasons for one week from July 6, 2015. By letter dated July 14, 2015
the Manger Compliance/Staff Services, Dave Manes, noted that the Grievor
continued to be absent from work and requested a further note. The Grievor
called Mr. Manes who indicated a note sent by facsimile transmission from the
Grievor’s doctor’s office would suffice. The Grievor contacted Dr. Woods’ office
and requested a note. Dr. Woods’ office sent a note dated July 16, 2015 by
facsimile transmission to the attention of Mr. Manes which stated the Grievor was
- 3 -
“off work for medical reasons pending medical assessment”.
[5] Following receipt of the note, Mr. Manes sent a letter dated July 16, 2015 to the
Grievor acknowledging receipt of the facsimile transmission. The second
paragraph of the letter states:
The note is unfortunately not an original document and has handwriting that
is obviously different from the previous notes from Doctor Woods. As such
this note is insufficient for the purposes of supporting Sick Leave benefits.
[6] The letter attached a Health Information Form and asked the Grievor to have his
doctor complete it. Dr. Woods did so. Dr. Woods also attached a copy of the
July 16, 2015 note. He annotated it to indicate that the text of the note had been
written by his secretary, while the signature was his.
[7] The Grievor is of the view that the second paragraph of the July 16, 2015
accused him of fraud. In his view the allegation was defamatory and
discriminatory contrary to the Human Rights Code.
[8] The second paragraph of the letter does not directly accuse the Grievor of fraud.
Nor, in my view, is that inference warranted. Rather, the second paragraph
makes a factually correct statement: the handwriting on the July 16, 2015 note
was different from notes which had previously been provided by Dr. Woods. The
statement is true and not defamatory. While it was not improper for Dr. Woods to
have his secretary write out the note, there is no reason why Mr. Manes would
have known that this is what had occurred. It was not improper in the
circumstances for the Employer to request further and better medical information.
There is no basis for concluding that the request was discriminatory.
[9] The grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 13th day of April 2017.
Ian Anderson, Vice-Chair