HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1400.Clancy.10-04-06 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#2008-1400
UNION#2008-0642-0015
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Clancy)
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
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Brian Scott
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARINGMarch 30, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The Employer and the Union at the Monteith Correctional Complex agreed
to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance
with the negotiated Protocol. Most 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.
[2]Mr. Kevin Clancy is a Maintenance Welder who received a one day
suspension in the spring of 2008. In the letter of discipline, dated April 22,
2008, it was stated the Mr. Clancy made out purchase orders for equipment
that a Maintenance Welder ?would not purchase or use?, including two XXL
rain suits, a water filtration system and vehicle tail-lights. The Employer
provided a copy of ?Shop Purchase Requests? filled out by the grievor that
failed to note the reason for purchases for only those items that are
suspicious. A list of equipment the grievor had requested was also provided
and the Employer was of the view that the grievor had been ordering this
equipment for his personal use. For example, the rain gear that was ordered
was in the grievor?s size and the ordered rain gear would fit no one else in
the department.
[3]Mr. Clancy denied these allegations as he had throughout the Employer?s
investigation. He provided a copy of a memo he wrote during the
investigation explaining a number of the items he had ordered. He stated
that he ordered the water filtration system because it was more safe,
- 3 -
economical and environmentally superior to the bottled water provided in
the area. Further, he said that ?for the better of all maintenance staff I was
going to show why we require proper protective clothing? and that ?this was
not a selfish action or strictly for my own benefit but an action for the
benefit of all maintenance staff?.
[4]The grievor also noted that he does not have the power to purchase. In this
and in all other instances, he merely made out a requisition which the
Employer could choose to accept or reject. Therefore, it is improper to
suggest that he was trying to purchase these items for his own use.
[5]The Employer replied that no one else in the department could have made
use of the rain gear given the size ?ordered? by the grievor and, further, it is
not a coincidence that the only items without description that the grievor
requested were of questionable value to the Employer. Finally, the
Employer noted that the issue of the water filtration system had gone to the
Health and Safety Committee and the bottled water was the resolution.
Therefore, it is highly improper of the grievor to attempt to order an
expensive piece of equipment that was not approved.
[6]It was agreed between the parties that the grievor had no discipline on his
file at this time.
[7]I understand why the Employer questioned these requisitions. Indeed, I
appreciate why the Employer became suspicious of the particular items
requested. The items do not seem to be of the sort that a bargaining unit
maintenance welder would order.
- 4 -
[8]I have no hesitation in finding that a one day suspension was too harsh in
these circumstances. I accept the Employer?s contention that the grievor
knew or ought to have known that his ability to requisition equipment has
certain constraints. Further, I am of the view that some of the equipment
requested is outside of those limitations.
[9]Additionally, I find that some of the grievor?s justifications for the ordering
the water filtration system and the rain gear questionable.
[10]Accordingly, I order that the suspension be rescinded and replaced with a
verbal warning. The record shall be altered to reflect this order and the
grievor should be appropriately compensated.
[11]I remain seized in the event of implementation difficulty.
th
Dated at Toronto this 6 day of April 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair