Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-2632.Raymond.17-11-06 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB#2016-2632 UNION# 2017-5112-0020 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Raymond) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Arbitrator FOR THE UNION Gregg Gray and Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor Al J. Quinn Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Senior Employee Transition Advisor HEARINGS August 27, 2017 and November 1, 2017 - 2 - Decision [1] Since the spring of 2000 the parties have been meeting regularly to address matters of mutual interest which have arisen as the result of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services as well as the Ministry of Children and Youth Services restructuring initiatives around the Province. Through the MERC (Ministry Employment Relations Committee) a subcommittee was established to deal with issues arising from the transition process. The parties have negotiated a series of MERC agreements setting out the process for how organizational changes will unfold for Correctional and Youth Services staff and for non-Correctional and non-Youth Services staff. [2] The parties agreed that this Board would remain seized of all issues that arise through this process and it is this agreement that provides me the jurisdiction to resolve the outstanding matters. [3] Over the years as some institutions and/or youth centres decommissioned or reduced in size others were built or expanded. The parties have made efforts to identify vacancies and positions and the procedures for the filling of those positions as they become available. [4] The parties have also negotiated a number of agreements that provide for the “roll- over” of fixed term staff to regular (classified) employee status. [5] Hundreds of grievances have been filed as the result of the many changes that have taken place at provincial institutions. The transition subcommittee has, with the assistance of this Board, mediated numerous disputes. Others have come before this Board for disposition. [6] It was determined by this Board at the outset that the process for these disputes would be somewhat more expedient. To that end, grievances are presented by way of statements of fact and succinct submissions. On occasion clarification has been sought from grievors and institutional managers at the request of the Board. This process has served the parties well. The decisions are without prejudice but attempt to provide guidance for future disputes. - 3 - [7] Ms. Valerie Raymond is an OAG 8 working at the Toronto South Detention Centre. In August of 2015 she submitted a job trade registration form to request work at Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre or the Brantford Jail. [8] In April of 2016 there was a potential job trade match but this match was not supported by the Employer and according to Article 10.3.10 all job trades must be approved by the two employees involved and their managers. Later, in August of 2016 the grievor’s registration regarding job trades was removed from the Ministry’s registry and according to the Employer, there was no renewed request. [9] The grievor next submitted a lateral transfer request to move to HWDC and this request was denied. The Employer conceded that there was an OAG8 position vacant it chose to fill that vacancy through a competitive process. [10] In February of 2017 the grievor provided a medical note which stated that Ms. Raymond has “ongoing back pain” which is aggravated by her drive to work. The note from the grievor’s physician suggested that a transfer was a necessary accommodation. [11] The Employer undertook an ergonomic assessment of the grievor’s workstation and appropriate furniture was purchased. It was suggested that the workstation changes undertaken meets the Employer’s obligation to accommodate. Indeed, the Employer was somewhat skeptical about an accommodation request for a transfer based on medical needs given that the grievor’s address has changed and the distance to TSDC has increased since she first accepted the position at TSDC. [12] The Union urged the grievance should be upheld and the grievor should be transferred. [13] It is now trite law to state that accommodation is a triparte obligation. The first step in that process is for the employee to request the necessary accommodation and to provide sufficient medical documentation supporting that request. The parties then work toward the appropriate result. [14] In this instance, given the previous requests for transfer I understand the Employer’s skepticism. Further, I appreciate that the medical note provided is insufficient to substantiate the need for a transfer to another facility. However, it is not clear to me whether further medical documentation would lead to such a finding. - 4 - [15] Accordingly, I order the local parties and the grievor to meet to discuss her accommodation needs after the grievor provides the Employer with further, more comprehensive medical documentation that is needed for such a conversation to take place. [16] I will remain seized of the grievance in the event that the parties are unable to resolve the matter at the local level. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 6th day of November 2017. Felicity D. Briggs, Arbitrator