HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2323.Hottinger.08-07-16 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2006-2323
UNION# 2006-0368-0192
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Hottinger)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Gary Wylie
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
June 30, 2008.
2
Decision
The Employer and the Union at the Central East 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, a few remained unresolved and therefore require 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.
Michael Hottinger is a Correctional Officer who has been a member of the Ontario
Public Service since approximately 1986 and CECC since 2003. He filed a
grievance dated November 23, 2006, alleging the Employer had ?failed their duty
of care?. His grievance was filed after a co-worker attempted to institute a WDHP
complaint. An investigator met with both the grievor and his co-worker after the
complaint was filed and, according to the documents provided, the complaint was
not taken further.
At our hearing the grievor made many remedial requests including disclosure of
the ?final report? from the WDHP process; letters of apology from a number of
people including the premier of the province; a specific work assignment on the
day shift only, Monday to Friday; removal from the attendance awareness
program; four weeks of vacation due to the loss of top-up used while absent due to
illness from the workplace; lost overtime opportunities; legal costs; considerable
damages due to psychological injury; significant damages due to loss of personal
reputation.
3
In discussions with the Employer I found that a letter had been written by the
investigator following the meeting referred to above. That letter had never been
shared with the grievor. I ordered the Employer to disclose the investigator?s letter
and I gave it to the Union and the grievor, with qualifications, for review. The
letter was not copied and was returned to the Employer.
Given the protocol, it is sufficient for the purposes of this decision to say that the
parties had significantly disparate views of the facts. However, after hearing the
facts, reviewing various documents proffered and hearing the submissions, I order
the Employer to pay to the grievor $5,000.00 with respect to his various claims for
damages. This will dispose of this matter in full.
I remain seized in the event of implementation difficulties regarding the payment
of monies.
th
Dated in Toronto, this 16 day of July, 2008.
Felicity D. Briggs
Vice-Chair