HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1599.Obis.19-12-18 Decision
Crown Employees Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2017-1599
UNION# 2017-0234-0162
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Obis) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Ian Anderson Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Laura McDonald
Treasury Board Secretariat
Employer Relations Advisor
HEARING December 10, 2019
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-
Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated protocol. The majority of
the grievances are normally settled pursuant to that process. However, if a
grievance remains unresolved the protocol provides that an Arbitrator of the
Board, based on the evidence provided during the mediation session, will
immediately decide the grievance. The decision will be without reasons, without
precedent and prejudice and will be issued within fifteen working days of the
mediation unless the parties agree otherwise.
[2] On December 10 and 11, 2019 the parties at the Maplehurst Correctional
Complex agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in
accordance with the negotiated protocol.
[3] This grievance alleges intimidation, racial discrimination, racial profiling and
creating a poisoned work environment. On August 1, 2017, the Grievor’s
supervisor was standing outside the building and observed him arrive a few
minutes late. According to the Grievor, the supervisor stated “got you”. The
supervisor ordered him to complete an occurrence report with respect to having
booked into a work a few minutes late. At the same time, the supervisor
commented the Grievor was out of uniform. The Grievor, who is racialized, states
a non-racialized co-worker who had booked into work at the same time was not
ordered to provide an occurrence report. Further, the Grievor states that both he
and the co-worker were in uniform. I am satisfied that the supervisor in question
(who is no longer in the employ of the Employer) was a stickler for rules, and had
been the subject of complaints by a number of employees, both racialized and
non-racialized. I am also satisfied that the supervisor was outside the building
because he was a smoker and further that both the Grievor and the co-worker
were asked to provide an occurrence report. The co-worker agreed to do so. The
Grievor did not and was subsequently ordered to provide one. There is a dispute
about whether or not the Grievor was wearing a non-government issue T shirt.
- 3 -
There is no dispute, in any event, that other than making the comment that the
Grievor was out of uniform, the supervisor took no further action against him. The
Grievor also complains that on August 8, 2017 the same supervisor told him that
he had seen the Grievor’s car in the parking lot and that the Grievor had “pulled”
his keys at 7:05 AM. Arguably, the Grievor should have pulled his keys prior to
7:00 AM. The Grievor is concerned the supervisor was able to identify his car.
Further, the Grievor states the statement that he pulled his keys at 7:05 AM was
false: that in fact he pulled his keys at 7:04 AM.
[4] Having considered the facts and the representations of the parties, I find no
breach of the collective agreement. While race is a characteristic protected by the
Code, I find there is no nexus between the Grievor’s treatment and his race.
[5] Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 19th day of December, 2019.
“Ian Anderson”
Ian Anderson, Arbitrator