HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1391.Bowerman.11-12-06 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2010-0234-0186, 2010-0234-0194
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2010-1391, 2010-1399
B
Ontario Ps Union
(Bowerntosh) Union
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
ublic Service Employee
man/McI
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Scott Andrews
Ontario Public Serv
Grievance Officer
s
s
Laura McCready
Ministry of Government Service
Centre for Employee Relation
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING November 30, 2011.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] On February 5th
, 2010, Vice Chair Keller issued a decision regarding the Attendance
Support and Management Pilot Program, Re The Crown in Right of Ontario – Ministry of
Community Safety and Correctional Services and OPSEU Benko et al, GSB#2009‐
2821. At that point over eight hundred grievances had been filed, many of which alleged
that the program itself was a violation of the Collective Agreement and the Human Rights
ode of Ontario. C
[2] The decision contained a number of orders for the parties to assist in the
prospective implementation of the program. Those orders included the need for the
Employer to exercise reasonable discretion in dealing with non‐culpable absences and to
consider individual claims on a case by case basis. Further, it was ordered that the
Employer shall preclude absence that are the result of a disability as defined under the
Ontario Human Rights Code as well as absences resulting from proper consideration be
iven to WSIB absences. g
[3] The parties were directed to establish a dispute resolution mechanism to deal with
the numerous outstanding grievances. This order was fulfilled and it was agreed that Vice
Chair Keller and I would assist the parties in this regard. To allow for maximum efficiency,
it was established that entire days would be set aside for the mediation/arbitration of these
matter and that the Vice Chairs would attend at the workplace to facilitate necessary access
o employee records. t
[4] To date, there have been a handful of such days and the process appears to be
working well to date because the vast majority of disputes that have been addressed have
been resolved between the parties. As noted in Re The Crown in Right of Ontario –
MCSCS & OPSEU (Warling) (November 29, 2011), GSB#2010‐1825 (Keller), there have
been some larger issues identified as being common to many disputes that have Province
ide ramifications. These matters are being addressed by the parties. w
- 3 -
[5] Recently a day was spent at Maplehurst Correctional Complex to deal with ASMPP
rievances. Most were mediated to resolution. g
[6] In July of 2010, a group grievance was filed by a number of Correctional Officers at
Maplehurst regarding the ASMPP. As was the case in Re Benko, it was alleged that the
program was contrary to Article 44 of the Collective Agreement, the Ontario Human Rights
Code and “The Charter of Rights”. Only two grievances from this group remain outstanding.
his decision deals with those two grievances. T
[7] Ms. McIntosh and Mr. Bowerman continued to assert that the Employer has gone
beyond its management’s rights with the implementation and administration of this
rogram. p
[8] This very matter was considered and rejected by the Board in Re Benko. While
some direction was given to the parties in terms of the application of the program, there
was no finding or declaration that the Collective Agreement or any statute has been
iolated. v
[9] Accordingly, these grievances are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 6th
day of December 2011.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice‐Chair