HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0317.Pouli.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#2011-0530-0012
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#2011-0317
AN ARBITRATION
Under
B
Ontario Public Sployees Union
(Pouli) Union
- and -
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
ervice 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. Camille Pouli is a Correctional Officer at the Toronto Jail. In February
of 2011, a friend told her that there had been graffiti written about her on a
wall on 1B. According to the grievor, and this was not disputed by the
Employer, the graffiti was written on a wall that is visible to inmates, staff
and others. The graffiti was hurtful to her and she asked for it to be
removed. She became very upset by this incident and left the workplace due
to stress. She did not return to work for approximately two and a half
months. She alleged that the Employer should have protected her from this
incident. Further, it was asserted that the Employer made inappropriate
comments that caused WSIB, for which she applied, to be denied. She was
particularly concerned that it was implied in the WSIB denial that she was
being somewhat opportunistic. By way of remedy the grievor wanted to be
paid for her absence from the workplace, an immediate transfer to the
Toronto West Detention Centre and removal of certain notations made in
various files.
[3] The Employer stated in the Appendix C that the graffiti was removed as
soon as it was made aware. The Union did not dispute this comment.
- 3 -
Further, there was an assurance that, contrary to the grievor’s view, there is
no recording of a period of absence without leave in any of the grievor’s
files. The Employer took the position that while the situation was
unfortunate, there has been no violation of the Collective Agreement.
[4] After considering the facts and submissions made regarding this matter, I
must agree with the Employer. While I have sympathy for the grievor and
do not doubt that this caused her distress, I can find no violation of the
Collective Agreement and therefore the grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto this 24th day of January 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair