HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2076.Butsch.10-03-22 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
règlement des griefs
Settlement 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#2009-2076
UNION#2009-0368-0149
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Butsch)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews, Frank Inglis
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Gary Wylie, Laura McCready, Bart Nowak
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARINGMarch 4, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not
necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to a
?True Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each provides the Vice-Chair with submissions,
which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision is issued in accordance
with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and is without prejudice or
precedent.
[2]The grievor alleges that the employer failed to take appropriate steps to assist her when
she was subjected to improper treatment in the workplace as a result of her decision to follow
Ministry guidelines with respect to the division of duties between RN?S and RPN?S. The grievor
further alleges that the conflict around the issue created stress for her, and she was required to
take sick leave for a period of approximately four months. The employer takes the position that
there has been no breach of the collective agreement.
[3]The issues involved in this matter raise questions of credibility, conflict of evidence, and
motivation on both sides. The evidence presented so far is insufficient to enable a True
Mediation-Arbitration decision, and I am not prepared to rule on the matter after having
reviewed the evidence in the informal process of the mediation-arbitration session. I have
considered whether this matter should be referred to an Expedited Arbitration hearing, in
accordance with Paragraph 7.3 of the Local Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. However, it is my
view that the only way to get to the bottom of the grievance is to have the two main protagonists,
the grievor and her manager, testify in full and be subject to cross-examination. The grievor?s
allegations and the employer?s response, in particular the motivation to be attributed to the
- 3 -
various actors, are too complex to be adequately canvassed in the Expedited Arbitration process
contemplated by the Protocol. For that reason, it is my view that this matter should be referred to
Joint File Review for a full hearing, in accordance with Paragraph 8.11 of the Protocol. I am not
seized with this matter.
nd
Dated at Toronto this 22 day of March 2010.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair