HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-4081.Dakroub.06-02-24 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# 2003-4081 2003-4082,2004-3598
UNION# 2004-0234-0047 2004-0234-0050 2005-0234-0006
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 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 2005
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 the gnevor's status In the Attendance Support Program (ASP) The
gnevor IS currently at Levell In the ASP The gnevor alleges that he has been unable to earn
release from the program SInce 2000 because the employer has faIled to set an IndIVIdual
threshold for hIm that IS consIstent WIth hIS medIcal condItIOn. The gnevor states that hIS
treatIng physIcIan wIll not reply to the employer's request for an estImate of the number of days
the gnevor can be expected to mISS In a one year or SIX month penod. The umon takes the
posItIOn that the employer should have sought thIS InfOrmatIOn by requmng the gnevor to attend
an Independent medIcal eXamInatIOn (IME), as permItted under the collectIve agreement.
3
The employer responds that the gnevor has not cooperated In provIdIng appropnate medIcal
InfOrmatIOn, I e an estImate as to the number of days he may be expected to mISS due to hIS
medIcal condItIOn. The employer takes the posItIOn that It cannot request an !ME unless and
untIl the gnevor has provIded medIcal InfOrmatIOn from hIS treatIng phYSIcIan.
After consIdenng the eVIdence and the submIssIOns of the partIes, I order as follows
1 The gnevor IS to be frozen In the ASP at hIS current level
2 The gnevor wIll attend an IME under the terms set out In the collectIve
agreement.
3 The employer wIll gIve appropnate consIderatIOn to the IME report In
reVIeWIng the gnevor's attendance target.
4 If the IME report IndIcates a hIgher target IS appropnate, the gnevor shall
be placed In the momtonng phase of Level 1 and provIded the appropnate
opportumty to meet the target.
5 If the IME report IndIcates that the current target IS appropnate, the
gnevor shall be returned to the pOInt at whIch he was frozen, and the ASP
shall be applIed In the normal fashIOn on a go-forward basIs
6 I wIll remaIn seIzed to deal wIth any Issues an SIng from the
ImplementatIOn of thIS order
Dated at Toronto thIS 24th day of February 2006
I