HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-1461.Barnes et al.17-05-26 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#2015-1461, 2015-1462, 2015-1463, 2015-1464, 2015-1465, 2015-1466, 2015-1467,
2015-1468
UNION#2015-0229-0004, 2015-0229-0005, 2015-0229-0006, 2015-0229-0007,
2015-0229-0008, 2015-0229-0009, 2015-0229-0010, 2015-0229-0011
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Barnes et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Ian Anderson Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION John Wardell
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Laura McCready
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING May 25, 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 with no or minimal
reasons, be without precedent and prejudice and will be issued within fifteen
working days of the mediation unless the parties agree otherwise.
[2] On May 25, 2017 the parties at the Ontario Correctional Institute (“OCI”) agreed
to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with
the negotiated protocol.
[3] These individual grievances are all identical. OCI consists of a number of
treatment units which house “residents”. A unit typically has a group of
Correctional Officers (“COs”) regularly assigned to work in it. The Grievors were
the team assigned to Unit 3. In May 2014, the Employer temporarily “closed”
Unit 3 for a period of time. More particularly, the residents and staff of Unit 3
were dispersed to other units while the residents and staff of Unit 4 were moved
to the Unit 3 location to permit painting and maintenance of the Unit 4 location.
In May 2015, the Employer temporarily closed Unit 3 again in the same way, this
time to permit the movement of the residents and staff of Unit 2 while painting
and maintenance of the Unit 2 location. The grievances before me followed.
[4] The grievances allege discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code,
discrimination on the basis of union membership or activity and bullying and
harassment. The grievous assert that there is a high concentration of Union
officers or activists amongst the COs in Unit 3, that some of them are racialized
and that they have been the subject of ridicule by other COs as a result of being
moved twice. As proof of the Employer’s actions constituting discrimination and
being the source of ridicule by other COs, they assert that as a matter of logic,
Unit 4 should have been “closed” in May 2014 (i.e. the staff and residents of Unit
4 should have been dispersed to other units, rather than moving them to Unit 3
and dispersing the staff and residents of Unit 3), and Unit 2 should have been
closed in May 2015.
[5] The Grievor’s case is entirely circumstantial. In order for them to succeed I must
be satisfied that the inference which they ask me to draw is more likely than not
on all of the evidence before me. I am not able to reach that conclusion.
Accordingly, there has been no breach of the collective agreement.
- 3 -
[6] The grievances are denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 26th day of May 2017.
Ian Anderson, Vice-Chair