HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1733.McCafferty.17-06-19 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#2016-1733
UNION#2016-0411-0023
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(McCafferty) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Brian P. Sheehan Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Gregg Gray
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Ann Fowler
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING June 6, 2017
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre agreed to
participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the
negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say,
that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each party
provides the Vice-Chair with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities
they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol
and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is without prejudice or
precedent.
[2] The grievor is employed as a Maintenance Foreman at the Ottawa-Carleton
Detention Centre (OCDC).
[3] The grievor alleges that on May 11, 2016, the windshield of his personal vehicle
that was parked in the parking lot at the OCDC was damaged as a result of it being hit
by a stone, which was discharged from a lawnmower being operated by a grounds
worker. It is further alleged that the employee had removed a guard from the
lawnmower; resulting in cars in the parking lot being sprayed with debris.
[4] The grievor brought the damage to his vehicle to the attention of the Employer
that day.
[5] The Employer disputes that the damage to the grievor’s vehicle was necessarily
caused by discharge from the lawnmower operated by the employee in question. The
Employer also asserts that the grievance is not arbitrable as the facts, as alleged, do
not give rise to a violation of the collective agreement.
- 3 -
[6] The Union relied on Article 9.1, which provides that the Employer is obligated to
make reasonable provisions for the safety and health of its employees during their
hours of employment, as the basis for a finding that there has been a violation of the
collective agreement.
[7] An arbitrator’s jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating disputes between the parties
that are associated with an alleged violation of the collective agreement. An arbitrator
does not have all-encompassing jurisdiction over all matters that may arise at a
workplace; more specifically, the nature of the dispute must arise, expressly or
inferentially, from the ambit of the provisions of the collective agreement; such that, the
essential character of the dispute must relate to the administration, application or
interpretation of the collective agreement.
[8] The facts as alleged by the grievor in this matter, even if accepted, do not, in my
view, form a sufficient basis to establish the requisite nexus to the collective agreement.
In this regard, in terms of the purported connection to Article 9.1 (Health and Safety) of
the collective agreement, it is noted that this claim solely relates to the personal
property of the grievor and not to his health or well-being. Moreover, the focus of the
grievance is not based upon a failing on the part of the Employer to adopt or adhere to
particular safety policies or practices; but rather, relates to the negligent operation of a
lawnmower that purportedly caused the damage to the grievor’s vehicle.
[9] In conclusion, as suggested, the essential character of the dispute relates to a
claim of negligence with respect to the personal property of the grievor and there is not
a sufficient factual basis to suggest that the dispute arises from the ambit of the
provisions of the collective agreement.
- 4 -
[10] In light of the above, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 19th day of June 2017.
Brian P. Sheehan, Vice-Chair