HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-2175.Magee.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# 2004-2175
UNION# 2004-0234-0518
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Magee) 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 gnevor alleges that he was "systematIcally harassed" by another employee who was a nurse
at the InstItutIOn at the tIme The other employee has SInce left the employ of the mImstry The
gnevor alleges that the other employee harassed hIm, employed paSSIve aggressIve behavIOur to
"push my buttons" acted lIke" everyday was a new expenence " delIberately acted forgetful
as to what he said to her The gnevor seeks $100 000 for "months and months" of harassment.
The employer responds that the dIfficulty between the gnevor and other employee was a
personalIty conflIct, not harassment, and that the employee In questIOn has SInce left the employ
of the Mimstry
3
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that the facts do not support a conclusIOn that the gnevor was subjected to systematIc
harassment. The gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 16th day ofPebruary 2006