HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1578.Glab-Ritchie.12-03-29 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#2010-0521-0067, 2010-0521-0068
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
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2010-1578, 2010-1579
AN ARBITRATION
Under
B
Ontario Publyees Union
(Glab/Ritchie) Union
- and -
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
ic Service Emplo
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
fficer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Tim Mulhall
O
G
ntario Public Serv
rievance O
s
mployee Relations
Bart Nowak
Ministry of Government Service
C
T
entre for E
eam Lead
HEARING March 8, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Toronto Intermittent Centre 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] Mr. David Ritchie and Mr. Andrew Glab are Correctional Officers who were
working at Mimico Correctional Centre in the summer of 2010 when they
each received a three day suspension for failing to report receipt of and
forwarding an email which, by any objective measure was offensive. The
contents were, in the Employer’s view, racist and degrading to women. I
would argue with neither of those characterizations.
[3] There is no dispute on the salient facts. The grievors did not take issue with
the Employer’s contention that they received and distributed an email that is
contrary to the Employer’s WDHP policy. Indeed, it appears that from the
beginning of this most unfortunate incident, the grievors have admitted their
mistake.
[4] Both grievors have been with this Ministry for over a decade and were
discipline free at the salient time. The Union conceded that some level of
discipline is appropriate in the circumstances but the three day suspension
- 3 -
was too severe in the circumstances. It was urged that the grievors’ seniority
and favourable records should mitigate the level of discipline.
[5] The Employer urged that it views the grievors’ conduct as inappropriate,
offensive and insensitive and that such conduct cannot be tolerated. A
strong message had to be sent that such activity shall not be tolerated.
[6] The Employer stated in its letters to the grievors that this conduct was not a
momentary aberration. I am not sure why that comment was made
particularly given that there was no evidence to indicate that this incident
was a part of an ongoing course of conduct. Indeed, I heard of no other
similar incidents.
[7] The Union noted that while the Employer ordered the grievors to take a “one
on one sensitivity/training/coaching” session, it was not provided until more
than a year after the incident. I find that delay somewhat troubling given
that the training was meant to redress an immediate and significant issue.
[8] I understand and appreciate that the Employer is making a significant effort
to ensure that its employees understand that this type of conduct is totally
unacceptable. There is no question that the email at issue is offensive on a
variety of levels. However, in the particular circumstances of this case, I am
not convinced that sufficient attention was given to mitigating factors not the
least of which was the fact that both grievors were discipline free and were
forthright when confronted with this issue.
- 4 -
[9] Accordingly, I order that the discipline be reduced to a one-day suspension.
The letter shall be reissued with this change and the grievors shall receive all
compensation and seniority lost.
[10] I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto this 29th day of March 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair