HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2010.Thomas.10-05-04 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#2009-2010
UNION#2009-0108-0093
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Thomas)
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, excessive use of force when physically engaging an
inmate, failure to submit proper Occurrence Report regarding the use of force and
engaging in a course of action intended to cover up and/or diminish the significance of
the use of force.
[2]I have had the benefit of reading the investigation report and supporting documents,
including the transcripts of the 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 my conclusion that discipline is warranted. The only remaining
question is whether the 20 day suspension was appropriate. I have concluded that it was.
[4]While the various versions of the event provided by the COs involved in the incident are
not identical, there is sufficient common ability among them to conclude that the reason
given by CO Thomas for his initial actions was not accurate. I also conclude that the
subsequent force used by CO Thomas was not commensurate with the behaviour of the
inmate. Finally, his version of events, as provided to the investigator, and in his written
report, is not consistent with the events described by other COs, when read and
compared.
[5]The grievance is dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 4 day of May 2010.
Brian M. Keller, Vice-Chair