HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1239.Union.07-02-02 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2006-1239
UNION# 2006-0368-0068
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Union Grievance)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Karen Martin
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
December 14, 2006.
January 17,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
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-Arbitration" process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this
matter in mediation.
Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
This grievance concerns the assignment of employees in the food servIce area to supervIse
inmates in the washing of kitchen uniforms. The union states that employees in the food service
area spoke out at a staff meeting about their concerns regarding the cleanliness of the uniforms
being worn by inmates working in the kitchen. The employer responded by installing a washer
and dryer in the kitchen area, and by assigning employees in the area to supervise inmates while
they were cleaning the uniforms. The union alleges this decision was a retaliation for the fact
that the employees raised a concern, and argues that the work in question should properly be
performed by laundry services. Employees in the kitchen are trained in the supervision of
inmates, but the union argues that such supervision should properly be limited to inmate
activities related to the preparation of food, not the laundering of uniforms. The employer
responds that it considers the kitchen the best area in which to launder the uniforms, and that the
3
work in question is sufficiently related to kitchen work that employees can properly be assigned
to oversee inmate in that area performing the laundry work.
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of February, 2007.