HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-3820.Dakroub.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# 2003-3820
UNION# 2004-0234-0019
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Dakroub) Union
- and -
The Crown III 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 gnevance relates to a conflIct between the gnevor and OM16 McCabe at the InstItutIOn.
The gnevor states that hIS problems wIth OM16 McCabe date back to 1999 EVIdence was
adduced of two IncIdents In 1999 More eVIdence was provIded of IncIdents that occurred In
2004 dunng whIch the gnevor alleges that Ms McCabe used profamty when speakIng to hIm,
faIled to provIde hIm wIth appropnate relIef, spoke to hIm In an InsultIng and demeamng
manner and shouted at hIm
The employer responds that OM16 McCabe demes most of the allegatIOns She states she
attempted to provIde the gnevor wIth relIef on the occaSIOn complaIned of, but, for reasons she
cannot explaIn, the relIevIng employee dId not show up OM16 McCabe acknowledges that she
3
and gnevor "exchanged words" dunng one IncIdent, although she cannot recall the details of the
IncIdent. She also states that, as the result of an InterventIOn by a mutual fnend, she IS of the
VIew that the dIfferences between herself and the gnevor have been resolved.
After reVIeWIng the submIssIons of the partIes and the collectIVe agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that the gnevance should be dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 27th day ofPebruary 2006