HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1541.Jurcic.17-11.24 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#2017-1541
UNION#2017-0708-0015
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Jurcic) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Caroline Markiewicz
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING November 15, 2017
-2-
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre agreed to
participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the
negotiated Protocol. A number of the grievances were settled through that
process. However, this grievance remained unresolved requiring a decision from
this Board. The Protocol provides that decisions will be issued within a relatively
short period of time after the actual mediation sessions and will be without reasons.
Further, the decision is to be without prejudice and precedent.
[2] Mr. Max Jurcic is a Correctional Officer at the Correctional Centre. Notwithstanding
the policy that cell phones should be left either in one’s vehicle or locker, Mr. Jurcic
took a cell phone into the workplace one evening and checked for messages. This
fact was discovered by the Employer while reviewing video surveillance regarding
another matter. For this violation of policy Mr. Jurcic received a two-day
suspension.
[3] The Union urged that there were extenuating circumstances in this case. On the
evening that the grievor took his phone into the workplace, his daughter was in
hospital. He was anticipating news from his spouse in this regard. It was conceded
that some level of discipline was warranted but suggested that given the fact that
the grievor was without discipline of any sort on his file, the discipline should be
reduced.
[4] The Employer noted that the period of time that the grievor was looking at his
phone was approximately a minute and given that his assignment that evening
was a constant watch of an inmate, a two-day suspension is warranted.
[5] After considering the facts and submissions of the parties, I am of the view that
there is just cause for discipline. However, given all of the evidence presented a
one-day suspension is the appropriate quantum.
-3-
[6] Accordingly, the record should be altered to show a one-day suspension and the
grievor is to be compensated for one day lost wages. I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24th day of November 2017.
Felicity D. Briggs, Arbitrator