Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2123.Lachance.07-09-26 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# 2006-2123 UNION# 2006-0617-0009 THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Lachance) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Marilyn A Nairn Scott Andrews Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union Faith Crocker Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services September 17,2007. Union Employer Vice-Chair 2 Decision This award flows from a mediation-arbitration session concerning the Sudbury Jail on September 17 and 18,2007. Going into the session, the parties had agreed to utilize an expedited mediation-arbitration process to determine grievances. That process contemplates that the parties will attempt to resolve matters through mediation, failing which, they have agreed that the Vice- Chair will determine the matter based on the material presented by both parties during the mediation and without the need for further formal proceedings. The parties are agreed that any award issued in this process does not constitute a precedent and is without prejudice to the positions of the parties in any other matter. As a result, they have also agreed that any award is to provide only brief reasons, if any. In doing so, the parties have agreed to a process that will also expedite the release of any award. In rare cases, if it becomes apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved are of a complex nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through 'regular' arbitration. Such was not the case here. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process. In this grievance dated October 3, 2006, the union alleges that the grievor, Mr. Paul Lachance, was wrongly denied washroom relief in a timely fashion on an overtime shift and that he was harassed about it. The grievor is presently being medically accommodated in the control area of the jail. The employer does not dispute that relief was not immediately forthcoming on the day in question. There is also no dispute that the grievor, having been unable to contact the Operations Manager in charge in his office, radioed the Admitting and Discharge Area directly to request relief. The co-worker who took the call is alleged to have made an inappropriate remark to the grievor and it is further alleged that the Operations Manager was present and overheard the remark. There is no doubt that the employer has an obligation to accommodate a correctional officer who suffers a medical disability. The employer in this case was satisfied that the grievor had established his right to be accommodated and had provided work in accordance with the 3 grievor's medical restrictions. There was also no dispute that the gnevor was entitled to participate in overtime opportunities in the same manner as other correctional officers, as the medical restrictions had no bearing on that issue. There is no doubt that the employer is required to provide timely rest breaks to its employees. In order to facilitate that relief, employees are expected to contact the operations or other manager in charge on the shift. Notwithstanding that more informal arrangements may occur, such an approach may also reduce the likelihood of any spontaneous expression of frustration or resentment by co-workers. Since the time of the union's filing of this grievance, and pursuant to a separate WDHP complaint, the employer has provided training to correctional officers and managers with respect to the rights of accommodated workers. Had this matter proceeded further, such would have been an appropriate remedy in this case. I find no further remedy to be appropriate at this time, although all parties are directed to have regard to the comments contained in this award. These proceedings are hereby terminated. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 26th day of September, 2007.