Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2730.Duff.07-11-20 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 Nj ~ Ontario Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2006-2730,2006-2739 UNION# 2006-0234-0390,2006-0234-0399 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under 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 (Duff) - 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 November 15, 2007. Union Employer Vice-Chair 2 Decision This award flows from a mediation-arbitration seSSIOn held from November 13 to November 15, 2007, for bargaining unit employees at the Vanier Centre for Women. Going into the session, the parties 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-expedited arbitration session, 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 case, the grievances, dated November 1 and November 13, 2006 (Files #2006- 2730 and 2006-2739), raised three issues; that the grievor's accommodation was inappropriately terminated; that the grievor was not allowed to return to work as soon as he had been cleared to return to work by his family physician; and that he required an ongoing accommodation based on family status issues. That latter issue included an allegation that the employer had discriminated against the grievor by denying the ongoing accommodation. The grievor, John Duff, had been accommodated for a significant period of time. However, the accommodation was appropriately reviewed in the fall of 2006. The grievor was advised that the accommodation would be terminated. The grievor then went on sick leave for a period of time. His return to work clearance gave rise to certain safety concerns on the employer's part that required further medical clarification. Rather than attempting to address the matter with the grievor and his attending physician, the employer sent the grievor (with his cooperation) for an independent medical examination. That medical report cleared the grievor to return to work and the employer 3 returned the grievor to work following its receipt. That detailed medical information did not support the ongoing accommodation request. No other detailed medical information was forthcoming regarding any ongoing accommodation need. The fact that another may be accommodated to a day shift is not evidence of discrimination unless it can be shown that the needs and restrictions in such a case were the same. In the circumstances, I am persuaded that the employer could have attempted to have its concerns addressed and have the grievor cleared to return to work in a somewhat more expeditious manner. I therefore direct the employer to credit the grievor's bank with twenty hours. In all other respects, these grievances are hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 20th day of November, 2007.