HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-2251.Toplin.06-10-12 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2003-2251
UNION# 2003-0248-0137
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Toplin)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE Vice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mary-Jo Knappett
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
May 24, 2006
SUBMISSIONS
September 1, 2006.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to
reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have
agreed to a ?True Mediation-Arbi tration? process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and author ities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the fact s during the mediation ph ase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
without reasons, and are without prejudice or preceden t. The parties were unable to resolve this
matter in mediation. Accordingly, the matte r has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration deci sion under the Protocol.
At the beginning of the session on May 24, 2006, it was determined that the union had not
provided the employer with full or appropriate Ap pendix B?s, as required under the Protocol, and
as a result, the employer had been unable to prepare appropriate Appendix C?s. I met with the
representatives of the parties, and it was agreed the three-day mediati on session would proceed.
In order to assist the parties, I advised that the union would be expected to prepare appropriate
Appendix B?s prior to the discussion of any speci fic case. This they did, and, in the process,
numerous grievances were withdrawn by the uni on. The employer then reviewed each grievance,
and mediation was attempted. There were a number of grievances referred to arbitration, and the
employer was provided with a full opportunity to submit formal Appendix C?s after the session.
3
FACTS
The grievor is under the Attendance Support Program, (ASP). He alleges that the employer has
failed to given fair considerati on of his need for an individuali zed threshold throughout his time
in the program. The union asserts that, althoug h he was granted individualized targets at Level
3, had he been granted such consideration earlier he would not be in the program at all. The
grievor is seeking removal from the program. The employer responds that individualized targets
under the ASP must be supported by medical documentation.
INTERIM DECISION
The grievor is directed to pr ovide the employer with current medical documentation to support
an individualized target. If such informa tion is provided, the employer is directed to
immediately review the grievor?s attendance target in light of su ch medical information. I will
remain seized to deal with any other issues a nd any issues arising from the implementation of
this decision.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 12 day of October, 2006.
________________________
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair