Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2761.Union Grievance.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# 2005-2761 UNION# 2005-0234-0079 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Umon Gnevance) 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 gnevance arose after an Inmate was transferred to the Vamer InstItutIOn, where she was held pendIng an urgent medIcal appoIntment. The Inmate was aware of the tIme and locatIOn of her appoIntment, but the employer dId not segregate her from the rest of the populatIOn or from outsIde VI SI tors or phone calls Some CorrectIOnal Officers became aware of these cIrcumstances, and were concerned about the possIbIlIty that the Inmate had commumcated InfOrmatIOn to an outsIde source about her appoIntment, thus potentIally compromISIng the safety of the two CO's who would normally accompany the Inmate on the transfer to and from the appoIntment. The employees raised these concerns wIth the employer at the tIme of the transfer and a work refusal was ImtIated by some employees The employer opted to send 3 3 OM16's to the appoIntment, and employed the same procedure for a follow-up appoIntment on the folloWIng day The umon pursued the work refusal and complaIned that the employer had faIled to respond properly to the work refusal In that no InVestIgatIOn was conducted as reqUIred under the Occupational Health and Safety Act The Inspector's report IndIcates that the employer acknowledged that the Act had been breached. The umon argues that, had the employer responded appropnately to the concerns raised by the employees and the work refusal, the partIes mIght well have agreed to deal wIth the matter by addIng a thIrd CO to the escort. ThIS proposal was not put to the employees on the first day The umon asserts that It was even more unreasonable for the employer to have used management employees for the escort on the second day SInce ample tIme had been avaIlable In order to devIse a plan to deal wIth the safety Issue The umon argues that the employer faIled to provIde for the health and safety of employees, as set out In Art. 9 1 of the collectIve agreement, and seeks a declaratIOn of vIOlatIOn as well as compensatIOn to affected employees for mIssed overtIme opportumtIes The employer responds that escortIng Inmates IS an Inherent part of CO dutIes The Inmate In questIOn reqUIred medIcal treatment on an urgent basIs, and It was necessary to transport her ImmedIately despIte the refusal of the CO's to do so The employer acknowledges that the work refusal process under the OHSA was not followed, but that does not equate to a breach of the collectIve agreement. 4 After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn that the gnevances should be upheld In part. The employer's actIOns were a breach of Art. 9 1 and I so declare Dated at Toronto thIS 2ih day of February 2006 I