HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-3090.DaSilva.12-01-24 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#2011-0530-0006
IN THE MATTER OF
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Fa
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
GSB#2010-3090
AN ARBITRATION
Under
B
Ontario Public ployees Union
(DaSilva) Union
- and -
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
Service Em
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Laura Josephson
O
G
ntario Public Serv
rievance Officer
s
s
Victoria Fichtenbaum
Ministry of Government Service
C
E
entre for Employee Relation
mployee Relations Advisor
HEARING January 19, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Toronto Jail agreed to participate in the
Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated
Protocol. Most of the grievances were settled through that process.
However, a few remained unresolved and therefore require a decision from
this Board. The Protocol provides that decisions will be issued within a
relatively short period of time after the actual mediation sessions and will be
without reasons. Further, the decision is to be without prejudice and
precedent.
[2] Ms. Diana DaSilva is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievance alleging
that the Employer failed to meets its obligation to accommodate her for
reasons of family status. By way of remedy the grievor requested damages
and recompense for monies for “top up” of her sick leave. She was absent
from the workplace for a period as the result of stress caused by the
Employer’s failure to accommodate her family status needs.
[3] There was much discussion between the parties about what information was
presented to the Employer regarding Ms. DaSilva’s request for
accommodation. By her own admission, the grievor did not make the
Employer aware of all the reasons she required an accommodation in the
first place or an extension thereto. In this regard, Ms. DaSilva failed in her
obligations in the accommodation process and this failure made it difficult,
if not impossible, for the Employer to determine that this was a need for
anything other than for a short period of time to find child care
arrangements. Indeed, during a discussion with both the grievor and the Ms.
Crocker for the Employer held during the med/arb session, it was stated that
- 3 -
all the Employer was told that Ms. DaSilva had not yet managed to find
child care.
[4] My discussion with both parties also dealt with the alleged Employer failure
to follow its own policy regarding accommodation. Specifically, it was
asserted by the grievor that no meeting was held to review her request for an
extension to her three month accommodation. Ms. Crocker, for the
Employer denied that allegation citing a discussion held when where the
grievor dropped by her office. At that time the grievor again referred to her
inability to find suitable child care. The grievor denied this “meeting”.
[5] In my view, it is unnecessary to determine whether there was such a
meeting. If there was a discussion as set out by Ms. Crocker, and it is
entirely possible that the grievor would forget so casual a conversation, that
communication did fulfill the Employer’s obligations under its own policy at
page 5.
[6] Accordingly, I find neither the Employer nor the grievor fully satisfied their
obligations in the accommodation process according to the Employer’s
policy.
[7] Having said that, had the Employer held a proper review meeting, with the
attendance of a Union representative, more information might have been
requested and/or provided.
[8] I appreciate that the Employer made efforts in this matter but those efforts
were insufficient due to the lack of a formal review meeting. Accordingly, I
order the grievor to be paid $1,000 damages.
- 4 -
[9] I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto this 24th day of January 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair