HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2175.Bruce.06-02-27 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de Nj
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2002-2175
UNION# 2002-0234-0090
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Bruce) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Rena Khan
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING January 27 2006
2
DeCISIon
The partIes agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol for the Maplehurst
CorrectIOnal Complex. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say
that the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process whereIn each party provIdes the vIce-chair
wIth wntten submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes the party Intends to rely upon,
one week pnor to the heanng. At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the vIce-chair
IS permItted to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent
to the vIce-chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex or sIgmficant
nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through "regular"
arbItratIOn. Although IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at arbItratIOn, the
process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts pnor to the
heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adjudIcatIOn process ArbItratIOn decIsIOns are Issued In
accordance wIth artIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement and, therefore, are wIthout precedent.
The gnevor IS a classIfied CorrectIOnal Officer 2 He applIed for a postIng for the InstItutIOnal
CnsIs InterventIOn Team (ICIT) In January 2002 The selectIOn process for ICIT Involves four
stages, all of whIch were explaIned on the postIng. The gnevor passed the first two stages, the
physIcal fitness test and the screemng IntervIew However he dId not pass the thIrd stage whIch
IS set out In the postIng as follows
"3 Successful CandIdates wIll then be selected by the Supenntendent. ThIS
selectIOn wIll be based on attendance and work performance"
3
There were SIX opemngs posted for the ICIT team, but only five were filled, all by unclassIfied
CO's The gnevor argues that the employer acted In a dISCnmInatory or bad faith manner In
findIng that he was not at least relatIvely equal to one of the five successful applIcants
The employer responds that ICIT members are not In a specIal classIficatIOn, but rather are CO's
wIth specIal traInIng, and are called for cnSIS InterventIOn dutIes above and beyond normal CO
dutIes The employer asserts that relIable attendance IS a reasonable reqUIrement of the posItIOn,
gIven the unknowable tImIng of cnSIS InterventIOn and the extended hours often Involved.
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that the gnevances should be dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 27th day of February 2006
I