HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-3170.Schoenmakers.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# 2007-3170, 2007-3171, 2007-3172
UNION# 2007-0368-0173, 2007-0368-0174, 2007-0368-0175
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Schoenmakers)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles
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.
Peter Schoenmakers is a Correctional Officer who filed three grievances alleging
the Employer violated the Management?s right provision of the Collective
Agreement and discriminated against him based on a disability by failing to
continue his accommodation.
Having heard the facts and submissions of the parties I am of the view that the
Employer began a review of the grievor?s accommodation in a fashion that is not
congruent with its own policy and its contractual and statutory obligations. The
Employer is entitled to review accommodation arrangements in good faith from
time to time. At the time I heard this matter the Employer has restored the original
accommodation and no further adjustment in this regard remained outstanding.
While the Employer should have approached its review in this matter differently, I
cannot find that the Employer harassed or discriminated against the grievor.
Therefore, these grievances are moot and no further redress is necessary.
3
th
Dated in Toronto, this 16 day of July, 2008.
Felicity D. Briggs
Vice-Chair