HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-1641MCFARLANE99_05_18
ONTARKJ EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARKJ
-
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONEITELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
100, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G 1Z8 FACS/MILEITELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB # 1641/94
OPSEU # 94F382
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OntarIO PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(DennIs McFarlane)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown III RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Health)
Employer
BEFORE Michael V Watters V Ice-Chair
FOR THE MIchael Klug
GRIEVOR BarrIster & SolIcItor
Tolpuddle Labour CooperatIve
FOR THE Janet Myers
EMPLOYER Employee RelatIOns SpecialIst
Human Resources Branch
Mlmstry of Health
HEARING March 22, 1999 III Windsor, OntarIO
- 1 -
This case was presented at a mediation-arbitration proceeding held
in Windsor, ontario on March 22, 1999 pursuant to the Dispute Resolution
Protocol existing between these parties relating to backlog grievances
At the hearing, relevant facts were adduced by the grievor, Mr Dennis
McFarlane, and by Mr Andrew Robert, the Acting-Manager of the Windsor
Ambulance Service at the time material to this dispute The parties
agreed to supply written submissions following the hearing I have now
had the opportunity to consider the Employer's submissions dated April
12, 1999 and those submitted by the Union, in response, dated April 22,
1999
The grievance is dated June 2, 1994 The grievor, in substance,
claims that the Employer breached the health and safety provision, then
contained in article 18 1 of the 1992-1993 collective agreement, by not
providing each Ambulance Officer with a portable radio At the time,
the Employer's practice was to provide only one ( 1) portable radio for
each team of two ( 2) Officers By way of settlement desired the
grievance states. "If requested buy crew 2 portable radios per unit".
The grievance resulted from an incident which occurred in June of
1994 The facts of the incident may be briefly summarized as follows.
( i ) on the day in question, the grievor and his colleague,
Ms Grace Coda, were dispatched to a tavern to deal
with a patron experiencing chest pains,
(ii) when the grievor and Ms Coda entered the tavern, the
patron was on the floor A scuffle ensued when the
grievor tried to assist the patron The patron
attempted to hit the grievor and, generally, conducted
himself in a combative manner,
(iii) the grievor placed a call for assistance through the
portable radio,
(iv) the patron continued to resist and be combative
- 2 -
Ms Coda then proceeded to take the portable radio
from the grievor and placed another call for assistance,
(v) there was no specific acknowledgment from Dispatch that
either of the above two ( 2 ) calls were received.
(vi) during the encounter, the portable radio was passed back
and forth between the grievor and Ms Coda At some
point, it was knocked onto the floor and, consequently,
was out of reach of both Officers for a period of time
Ultimately, Ms Coda recovered the portable radio and
placed a third request for assistance;
(vii) after a period of time, the Operations Manager arrived
at the tavern and provided assistance to restrain the
patron Throughout the course of the incident, the
other patrons in the tavern and its staff were not
helpful,
(viii) at the time, the ambulance was equipped with a VHF
radio which remained in the vehicle,
(ix) the Emergency Health Services - Manual of Operational
Policy and Procedures, section 4 1 - 'Security of
Scene' instructs personnel to wait for the arrival
of police before attempting to access the p~emises
where there is a known or suspected violent situation
Section 5.5 addresses the care and transportation of
the emotionally disturbed I was informed that
training was provided in respect of policies and
procedures,
(x) the grievor expressed concern that response time was
delayed, in the circumstances of this case, given
the presence of only one (1) portable radio More
specifically, he noted that the radio could not be
accessed during the time it was on the floor From
his perspective, if a second portable radio had been
available, it could have been used to call for
assistance and thereby reduce response time
Having considered all of the facts and submissions, I conclude that
the grievance must be denied On the evidence, it has not been
established that the presence of only one ( 1) portable radio added to
response time It is indeed possible, on the facts, that the assistance
provided by the Operations Manager was as a result of the first call
I have not been persuaded that the supply of a second portable radio
- 3 -
would have improved the situation in any material respect Further, I
note that article 18 1 required the Employer "to make reasonable
provisions for the safety and health of its employees during the hours
of their employmentll I find that this standard was met through the
presence of a radio in the Ambulance, the provision of one (1 ) portable
radio per team, and the circulation of policies and procedures to
employees in respect of situations involving potential risk As stated
in the jurisprudence, the Employer is not obliged to guarantee an
employee's safety against every possible risk, no matter how remote the
possibility that it will occur see Andrews et al , 1815/89
(Goldenberg) Ultimately, I conclude that the Employer's practice of
providing one (1) portable radio per team did not violate article 18 1
of the collective agreement I note that at some point following the
grievance, cell phones were provided to Level 2, Paramedics This
development provided for an additional vehicle through which to secure
assistance, if necessary
I have reviewed OPSEU. Local 359, 608 v. Ministry of Solicitor
General and Correctional Services, (1997) OOHSAD No 319 relied on by
the Union While I agree that there are risks involved In being a
paramedic, I cannot find that the risks isolated in this case are
comparable to those experienced on a daily basis by the Correctional
Officers working in the Sault saint Marie Jail Simply put, I think the
aforementioned award is distinguishable from the instant dispute
For all of these reasons, the grievance is denied
Dated at Windsor, Ontario this 18th day of May, 1999
f'rt1 J W~
M V Watters