HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-1365RIENDEAU95_08_09
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE '" v\vt'~Gl\:
, JrI"\ <; - ~ ,-C'\'/
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS \\ 1- ...~ rf' c,
rv'V VJ\iIv~ ~
~I
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTAAIO, MSG IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G IZ8 FACS/MILE /TELI~COPIE (416) 326-1396
R =- ~'l r '~ '. f" ....... ~ ''W>; GSB #
. .~ ~ .'~ ,,;, ,'1" 1',;:Ilol\ ' ) 1365/94
"' ..,-. ,;\,1 ,~. i
_ . s.' ',-
, . . '.\'
AUG 1 0 1995 OPSEU # 94E419
I '" " -,.... f.... I
~ I _" \.) I:: II Ii I ~~, c:: IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
f\PPEAL 80,L\~DS "
~ Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Riendeau)
Grievor
" - and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General &
Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE N Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson
FOR THE L. Yearwood
GRIEVOR Grievance Officer
ontario Pubic Service Emloyees union
FOR THE M. Mously
EMPLOYER Grievance Administration Officer
Ministry of the Solicitor General &
Correctional Services
HEARING June 27, 1995
2
,.-
DECISION
This is an individual grievance dated August 26, 1994
filed by Mr. John Riendeau, a correctional officer employed
at the Pembroke Jail. He grieves that the employer is
"breaching article 18.1 of the collective agreement in that
they refuse to provide an emergency alarm button in the class
room "
Article 18 1 reads:
The employer shall continue to make reasonable
provisions for the safety and health of its
employees during the hours of their employment. It
is ag.reed 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 health and safety of all employees
The union takes the position that while every other area
in the jail used by inmates is equipped with a centrally
monitored emergency alarm button (referred to as the blue
alarm) , the employer has refused to install such an alarm in
the room known as the class room It is contended that
thereby the employer has contravened article 18 1
The employer's position is two fold It contends that
while the grievor insists that nothing but a blue alarm will
result in compliance with article 18 1, the employer has
implemented a number of alternative steps in order to comply
with its obligation under article 18 1 The employer takes the
3
position that in any event, there is no evidence that the
system in place has posed any unreasonable risk to the health
and safety of the grievor himself or to any other employee in
the bargaining unit since this is an individual grievance,
it is argued that in order for it to succeed, the grievor must
establish a violation of his rights under article 18 1. The
Board is asked to dismiss the grievance on that basis alone,
because the grievor cannot establish that he himself has been
exposed to any unreasonable health and safety risk, as a
result of the lack of a blue alarm in the class room
The eviaence indicates that the class room in question is
used for several purposes Each week day, for three hours,
the jail education programme is conducted there. During these
times, a teacher, an employee of the Renfrew County Board of
Education, conducts classes for 2 to 6 inmates In addition,
the chaplain uses this class room one evening per week to
conduct religious services and meetings for inmates. On
another evening Alcoholics Anonymous, a voluntary
organization, conducts sessions for inmates It is common
ground that the chaplain nor the staff of Alcoholics Anonymous
are employees of the Ministry In addition, on occasion, the
class room may be used by lawyers, social workers and the
like, (all persons other than bargaining unit employees) for
conducting of interviews
4
The Board heard evidence of the involvement of the
correctional officers who are members of the bargaining unit
with the activities going on in the class room The evidence
indicates that in the past the class room was used by the
barber Three trainee barbers would cut the hair of three
inmates at a time, under the supervision of the barber. A
corrections officer would be present in the class room during
this time However, the evidence is uncontradicted that the
practice of using the class room for barber day had ceased
some time ago
The pa~ties are in dispute in this case as to the extent
of the legal obligation arising out of article 18.1. The
employer contends that the health and safety protection
envisaged by article 18 1 extends only to the employees of the
employer. The union on the other hand submits that even if
the evidence does not establish an undue risk to any
bargaining unit employee, if non-employees such as the teacher
or the chaplain are exposed to such risk, that results in a
violation of article 18 1
In my view, the language in article 18.1 leaves no doubt
that the obligation arising thereunder is limited to the
safety and health of employees of the employer Article 18 1
clearly specifies that the employer's obligation is " to make
reasonable provisions for the safety and health of its
5
employees during the hours of their employment " (emphasis
added)
The evidence is that the correctional officer occupying
post 5 is responsible for the class room when inmates are in
it The Post 5 officer is located in the hallway right
outside the class room door, which is kept locked. The
officer's primary responsibility is to use his key to let
people in and out of the classroom. The person in charge
inside the class room, (Chaplain or teacher) has been issued
a personal body alarm that carries the brand-name "Mugger
stopper Emetgency Alarm " Mr. Riendeau's concern is that the
inmates may overpower the chaplain or teacher and take control
of the body alarm carried by him. However, Mr Riendeau
agreed that if that happens, the correctional officer in post
5, would be in no danger because he would be outside the
locked door. He is able to call for back up within seconds by
reaching for the blue alarm located within two feet of his
post.
I will not review the evidence in any great detail
because the union did not press with any conviction that the
existing security posed any unreasonable risk to the grievor
or any other correctional officer Instead, the alleged risk
was to the chaplain or the teacher In very candid fashion
Mr Riendeau himself conceded under cross-examination, that
6
since the barber activity ceased, the post 5 officer posted
outside the locked door of the class room was in no danger
The employer denied that the existing system posed an
undue health and safety risk to anyone It is tempting for me
to intervene and deal with an allegation of an unreasonable
health and safety risk, regardless of who is alleged to be
exposed to that risk. However, I would be exceeding my
jurisdiction if I were to do so The collective agreement
rights under article 18.1 are limited only for the benefit of
bargaining unit employees It is not surprising that a
collective agreement, unlike statutes of general application,
are so limited
I make no finding whether any non-employees or inmates
are exposed to an unreasonable health and safety risk due to
the present system in place. However, I do find on the basis
of the evidence that the union has failed to establish that
the employer had failed to make reasonable provisions for the
safety and health of the grievor or any of the bargaining unit
employees Therefore, this grievance would have failed even
if it was filed as a Qnion grievance, because a violation of
article 18 1 is not made out in the absence of an unreasonable
risk to an employee of the employer
7
While Mr Riendeau's concern for the safety of others is
to be commended, if indeed the existing system contravenes
some law or regulation, other avenues of enforcement may be
available to him. However, in the absence of a violation of
the clear terms of article 18.1, this grievance must be
dismissed.
Dated this 9th day of August 1995 at Hamilton, ontario
~e7~
Nimal V Dissanayake
Vice-Chairperson
~