HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2006.Rowe.10-05-03 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#2009-2006
UNION#2009-0108-0090
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Rowe)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREBrian M. Keller Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONScott Andrews
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERSean Milloy
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARING
November 30, 2009.
SUBMISSIONS
January 29, March 9, 2010 and April 4, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The grievor was suspended for 20 days as a result of an incident alleging excessive use of
force with respect to an inmate. An investigation concluded that the excessive use of
force occurred as alleged. Subsequently, the grievor was disciplined for not fully
cooperating with the investigation, violating Standing Order 05.10, using unjustified
force when physically engaging an inmate and engaging in a course of action intended to
cover-up and/or dismiss the significance of the use of force.
[2]I have had the benefit of reading the investigation report and supporting documents,
including the transcripts and interviews with the COs involved, as well as that of the
grievor. I also heard, in person, the explanations of the grievor and of the employer.
Finally, I have carefully considered the subsequent written submissions of the parties.
[3]Based on the above, it is evident that the actions of the grievor warrants discipline. The
only remaining question is whether the 20 day suspension is excessive. I have concluded
it is not.
[4]The grievor knowingly breached protocol. His explanation for entering the inmate?s cell,
when compared to the accounts of other COs, is questionable. His decisions to enter the
cell resulted in everything that subsequently transpired. Effectively, it was his action that
triggered the subsequent excessive use of force. Finally, there is no question, in my
mind, that he did not cooperate, as required, in the investigation.
[5]The grievance is dismissed.
rd
Dated at Toronto this 3 day of May 2010.
Brian M. Keller, Vice-Chair