HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1626.Denhartogh.08-11-28 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#2006-1626
UNION#2005-0135-0015
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Denhartogh)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Fisher
FOR THE UNION
Tim Hannigan
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes
Barristers and Solicitors
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Lisa Amin
Counsel
Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
November 28, 2008.
2
Decision
[1]This award is pursuant to the Med-Arb process and is without precedent. The grievor is a
Correctional Officer at a provincial jail. She was a witness in a previous GSB case
wherein she testified that she saw one Correctional Officer assault another Correctional
Officer. The Correctional Officer who committed the assault was discharged and filed a
grievance. The GSB found that the said Correctional Officer had committed the assault.
However, the discharge was overturned and instead the Correctional Officer was
reinstated with a one-month suspension.
[2]The said Correctional Officer returned to the workplace in 2005, and throughout that
period and up to today, the grievor has continued to work at the jail.
[3]Upon this Correctional Officer?s return to work, the grievor has strongly felt that her
safety and health is at risk because of a fear of retaliation against her by the said
Correctional Officer. She has related incidents involving uncomfortable situations when
the two of them were in the same room, passing in the hallway, and other such
interactions.
[4]Management has tried to schedule these two parties on opposite shifts; however, given
the size and scheduling needs of the institution, this simply has not been feasible. As a
result, over the last few years, the grievor has been forced to decline shifts to avoid
having to be in the jail at the same time as the said Correctional Officer.
[5]I have concluded therefore that the grievor?s continuing presence at the jail alongside the
said Correctional Officer poses an unacceptable risk to the grievor?s health and safety,
and that no accommodation within the institution is possible.
[6]The grievor has requested a transfer to Central North Correctional Centre, in Penetang. I
therefore order her to be transferred to the next available full-time Correctional Officer
position for which she is qualified. As this transfer is made at her request, all expenses
related to the transfer are her responsibility.
[7]In an effort to compensate her for the time off she took while an unclassified Correctional
Officer, I also order that her continuous service date be credited with 20 weeks, for
collective agreement purposes, without monetary compensation. Any benefits or
entitlements that could be derived from this adjustment to her continuous service date
shall be on a go-forward basis only, and non-retroactive. It is further understood that this
continuous service date adjustment does not affect her pensionable service date, or
anything whatsoever to do with the pension, as I am without authority to bind the
pensions trust.
3
[8]For clarity purposes, it is not the intention of this award to require the employer to pay
any monies whatsoever to the employee. I reserve jurisdiction over any issues regarding
the interpretation or implementation of this award.
th
Dated at Toronto this 28 day of November, 2008.
Barry Fisher, Vice-Chair