HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2497.Tyler.10-09-02 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 2009-2497, 2009-2498, 2009-2534
UNION#2009-0128-0063, 2009-0128-0064, 2009-0128-0066
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Tyler)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
M.B. Keller
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Greg Gledhill
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARINGAugust 26, 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] These grievances are related to an allegation by the grievor that the employer did
not adequately respect its obligation relating to a non-contact, non-communication order
pertaining to an inmate and the grievor as a result of threats against the grievor.
[3] The order had been active at least from August 29, 2009. The employer was
aware of the order. The incident giving rise to the grievances occurred on October 29,
2009. The inmate had previously been housed in the institution on October 13, 2009.
The grievor, at the time did not work the same area as that in which the inmate was
housed and acknowledged he had no contact or communication with the inmate at that
time.
[4] The grievor was on a RDO on October 28 and 29, 2009. On his return to work
he determined he was a GDO 2 in various areas, one of which included the area in
which the inmate was housed. The inmate had arrived at the jail on October 27.
- 3 -
[5] The grievor went off sick that day, produced a medical note on November 3 and
did not return to work until late November. His sick leave absence was not approved for
October 29, 30 and 31. He seeks payment for those days, top-up for the remainder of
his absences, lost overtime and damages.
[6] After reviewing the submissions of the parties it is my conclusion that the
grievances should be allowed in part. The grievor is to be compensated 33.5 hours, at
the hourly rate then in effect, for his sick time on October 29, 30 and 31.
[7] Additionally, the employer is to pay the grievor $200, without any deductions, for
its failure to properly assign the grievor on October 29. It was aware of the Order (See
Paragraph 3) and had two days from the time the inmate arrived at the jail to ensure
that the grievor would be assigned away from the grievor.
[8] I decline to award other compensation sought. The inmate was convicted but
released on October 30, his sentence being 5.5 months, time served. The grievor?s
doctor put him on sick leave subsequent to that. To award compensation I would have
to find a causal relationship between the actions of the employer and the reason for the
sick leave.
- 4 -
In my view, it is reasonable to assume that the principle cause for the sick leave
subsequent to the inmate?s releasewas no longer the issue regarding the
workplace but, rather, that the inmate had been released.
nd
Dated at Toronto this 2 day of September 2010.
M.B. Keller, Vice-Chair