Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-2154.Union.24-01-26 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 GSB# 2019-2154 UNION# 2019-0999-0023 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer BEFORE Ian Anderson Arbitrator FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Holmes Bryden Nam LLP Counsel FOR THE EMPLOYER Felix Lau Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING January 15, 2024 -2 - Decision [1] In my decision in this matter dated September 17, 2021 (2021 CanLII 95740 (ON GSB)), I made the following finding and directions: 172 (ii) I find the installation of a camera in the central control module at SWDC [sic: Maplehurst] does not, itself, violate the collective agreement but that the reasonable necessity of using that camera for the purpose of observing the passage of inmates in the hallway next to the control module has not been established. I direct the Employer to consider whether there are means of observing the passage of inmates in the hallway next to the central control module which do not result in the observation of the central control module officers. This includes, but is not limited to, considering whether a separate camera could be installed in the hallway. [2] The parties disagreed as to whether the direction extended to all correctional facilities in the province or just to Maplehurst. On January 9, 2023, on a without prejudice or precedent basis, the parties agreed as follows: The Union will provide to the Employer a list of every control module for which the Union has reason to believe there is inmate movement in the hallway outside the control module which is captured by the camera in the control module. The list will be broken down by institution. For each such control module, the Union will identify on the list, to the best of its knowledge, where the inmate movement is going. For each control module identified by the Union, the Employer will conduct a review consisting of the following: (a) The Employer will confirm whether or not there is inmate movement in the hallway outside the control module which is captured by the camera in the control module. (b) If so, the Employer will consider whether there are means of observing the passage of inmates in the hallway next to the control module which do not result in the observation of the employees in the control module (the “review”). This review will include, but is not limited to, considering whether a separate camera could be installed in the hallway. The Employer will share the outcome of those reviews with the Union. The Parties will arbitrate any disputes arising from those reviews, including those which have arisen from the review at Maplehurst, before Arbitrator Anderson. Arbitrator Anderson will convene a case management hearing to determine how the arbitration of any such disputes will be conducted. -3 - [3] The process contemplated by this agreement was completed in relation to ATRC, CECC, CNCC, Maplehurst (Unit 5, 6 and 7 sub-control modules) and Vanier. In relation to the control modules identified by the Union with respect to those institutions (the “subject control modules”, the Employer has confirmed that there is inmate movement in the hallway outside the control module which is captured by the camera in the control module. The Employer has also advised that its review has established that there are cameras outside the subject control modules which capture the movement of inmates in the hallway next to the control module and which do not result in the observation of the employees in the control module. The process has not been completed in relation to other control modules. [4] The Union seeks to have the cameras in the subject control modules moved or their field of vision altered so that they no longer capture inmate movement in the hallway outside the control module. (In doing so, the Union seeks to ensure that those cameras cannot be used for that purpose.) The Employer resists this request. The parties disagree as to whether this issue which flows from the 2021 decision or their January 9, 2023 agreement. The Union indicates its intention to file a fresh grievance with respect to that issue, which it will seek to have consolidated with this matter. The Employer agrees the new grievance should be consolidated with this matter, without prejudice to any of its legal rights. The parties agree that this matter should be adjourned sine die to allow for the processing of the new grievance. [5] In the result, these proceedings are adjourned sine die. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 26th day of January, 2024. “Ian Anderson” Ian Anderson, Arbitrator