HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-1354.Charles et al.17-12-12 DecisionCrown 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# 2002-1354; 2002-2476; 2003-4063; 2004-3640; 2006-0144; 2007-2322; 2016-2860
UNION# 2002-0517-0001; 2002-0517-0073; 2003-0368-0034; 2005-0368-0008; 2006-0999-
0003; 2007-0369-0083; 2017-0368-0023
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Charles et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE
Bram Herlich
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Ed Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Peter Dailleboust
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Senior Counsel
HEARING December 8, 2017
-2-
DECISION
[1] The parties have requested that I assist them in resolving an issue that has
arisen in relation to the implementation of my prior award in this matter. They have
agreed that this determination ought to be made following the procedural dictates of
Article 22.16 of the collective agreement. They made concise submissions on the issue
in question before me and asked that I issue a “bottom line” decision.
[2] There is no dispute that, as a general proposition, an inmate escort requires the
assignment of two COs who have completed the relevant training or of three COs who
have not. Where there are insufficient COs available to perform a required escort, the
employer retains a discretion to make other arrangements, which could include securing
the services of police to perform the escort.
[3] The question is: In circumstances where there is but a single CO available to
perform a required escort, is the employer required to so assign that CO along with
police (e.g. one CO and one police officer)?
[4] In my view, the answer to this question is no, the employer is not so required.
The posited facts constitute a circumstance where the requisite number of COs is
unavailable, thus triggering the employer’s discretion to make alternate arrangements in
the assignment of the work. I was not pointed to anything that would require the
composition of what (if this were the construction industry) might be described as a
“mixed crew” and neither am I prepared to impose such an unusual requirement solely
by inference.
[5] I trust this resolves the parties’ issue.
Issued in Toronto this 13th day of December, 2017.
“Bram Herlich”
__________________________
Bram Herlich, Arbitrator