HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2291.Sabourin et al.10-09-29 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#2009-2291
UNION#2009-0234-0155
Additional Files listed in ?Appendix ?A?
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Sabourin et al)
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, Laurie Sabourin, Tim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Sean Milloy, Victoria Fichtenbaum, Karen
Martin
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officers
HEARING
September 21, 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 grievance in this case relates to the employer?s use of a male CET officer during an
activation, contrary to the employer?s stated policy. The grievors allege the employer?s action
caused them harm as male employees who have in the past been prevented or dissuaded from
becoming part of the CET team and seek human rights damages. The employer relied on the fact
that there was the possibility of imminent harm to the inmate or others, and the use of the male
officer, although contrary to the employer?s policy, was justified in the circumstances. The
employer affirmed its ongoing commitment to the policy, and characterized this event as an
aberration brought on by emergency circumstances.
[3]After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my
conclusion that the grievances should be dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 29 day of September 2010.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair
- 3 -
?Appendix ?A?
OPSEU File GSB
Grievor
NumberNumber
Mironchuk, Terry 2009-0234-0175 2009-2342
Kurczak, Robert 2009-0234-0193 2009-2810
Reinhart, Jim 2010-0234-0057 2009-3298
Bartniki, Andrew 2010-0234-0020 2009-3312
Blenkinsop, Shane 2010-0234-0021 2009-3313
Campbell, Wayne 2010-0234-0023 2009-3315
Cochrane, Christopher2010-0234-0025 2009-3317
Cordeiro, Emanuel 2010-0234-0027 2009-3319
Duff, John 2010-0234-0031 2009-3323
Good, Brian 2010-0234-0032 2009-3324
Guichelaar, Roger 2010-0234-0033 2009-3325
Howell, John 2010-0234-0039 2009-3331
Hulley, Don 2010-0234-0040 2009-3332
Klacik, Don 2010-0234-0041 2009-3333
Kurczak, Robert 2010-0234-0042 2009-3334
Marshall, Gordon 2010-0234-0045 2009-3337
McQueen, Mark 2010-0234-0046 2009-3338
Mironchuk, Terry 2010-0234-0048 2009-3340
Niemann, Michael 2010-0234-0052 2009-3344
Noble, Earle 2010-0234-0053 2009-3345
Noble, Earle 2010-0234-0055 2009-3347
Quigley, Ronald 2010-0234-0056 2009-3348
Rucko, Mark 2010-0234-0060 2009-3352
Sinclair, Bob 2010-0234-0061 2009-3353
Smith, Philip 2010-0234-0062 2009-3354
Smith, Scott 2010-0234-0063 2009-3355
Sponagle, Angus2010-0234-0064 2009-3356
Vetsavong, Steven 2010-0234-0065 2009-3357