HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-2162.Rudden et al.06-02-16 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# 2004-2162, 2004-2167
UNION# 2004-0234-0505 2004-0234-0510
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Rudden et al ) 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 December 13 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 gnevors worked an overtIme shIft on August 16 2004 from 0800 to 1600 At approxImately
1050 hours that day handcuffs were found In an Inmate's shoe, and a health and safety work
refusal was commenced by another correctIOnal officer A search was conducted. At
approxImately 1545 hours the gnevors and one other employee were ordered to remaIn at theIr
posts untIl the search was completed In theIr umt. At some pOInt thereafter the employer
declared an emergency sItuatIOn. Other correctIOnal officers on duty on other umts dunng the
IncIdent had been released at the end of theIr ShIftS The employer stated that thIS decIsIOn was
made after staff members expressed the VIew that the search on the other umts could be safely
completed the next day Inmates contInued to receIve yard and VIsItatIOn pnvIleges The
3
gnevors allege that the emergency declaratIOn only came after they had questIOned the decIsIOn
to hold them beyond theIr scheduled ShIftS The gnevors further allege that the decIsIOn to hold
them back was a form of retnbutIOn for the work refusal They claim compensatIOn of 12 hours
lIeu tIme as well as $500 cash.
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that the eVIdence does not prove a vIOlatIOn of the collectIve agreement. As a result, the
gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 16th day ofPebruary 2006