HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-3230.Winkworth.24-05-02 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# 2017-3230
UNION# 2017-0234-0232
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Winkworth) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Deborah J.D. Leighton Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION David Ragni
Koskie Minsky LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Caroline Cohen
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Senior Counsel
HEARING March 28, 2019; January 29 and 30,
October 8 and December 16, 2020;
February 4, March 17, April 7, June 24,
September 22 and November 25, 2021;
January 19, 2022
-2 -
Decision
[1] Ms. Erika Winkworth, a Rehabilitation Officer at Maplehurst Correctional Complex,
(MHCC) grieved a ten-day disciplinary suspension on December 14, 2017. The
Ministry disciplined the grievor for providing preferential treatment, when she
prepared a Temporary Absence Permit (TAP) for a correctional officer assigned to
MHCC to serve a 30-day sentence, contrary to Ontario Regulation 381/07, of the
Public Service of Ontario Act 2006, SO 2006, c.35, Sch. A. The decision to
discipline was also based on the grievor failing to be forthright during the
investigation and for failing to retain electronic documents related to the TAP
application. The Union’s position is that the grievor was simply doing her job and
therefore there was no misconduct, discipline is not warranted, and the grievance
should be allowed. This is a bottom-line decision with further reasons to be
provided should the parties ask for them.
[2] The issue before me then is whether the Ministry has proven just cause for
discipline, and whether a ten-day suspension was appropriate in all the
circumstances. There is no question that the grievor prepared the TAP application
for the CO inmate, which lead to the CO’s early release from the institution, when it
was not her job to prepare TAP applications. The preparation of the TAP occurred
in the context of preferential treatment by other CO’s and a Manager, who were all
subsequently disciplined. The CO inmate was amongst other things, allowed to
stay in his own street clothes, remain in Admitting and Discharge during the day,
provided with non-inmate food and permitted to take smoke breaks and use a cell
phone. No ordinary inmate would ever be given such privileges.
[3] Preferential treatment of a fellow incarcerated CO is a serious violation of the
conflict of interest regulations under PSOA. I am persuaded that the grievor’s rush
to prepare the TAP, the deliberate deletion of key documents and her failure to be
forthcoming during the investigation prove that she was giving the CO inmate
preferential treatment, and she knew exactly what she was doing. The grievor was
part of the concerted effort by a group of Maplehurst employees to “take care of
-3 -
our own.” No ordinary inmate would have had a TAP application prepared and
filed so quickly.
[4] Had Ms. Winkworth acknowledged that her preferential treatment was
inappropriate and a breach of her duty not to provide anyone with special
treatment, I might have been persuaded to reduce the discipline. However,
throughout the hearing she maintained the position that she was just doing her job.
Given all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a ten-day suspension is
proportionate to the misconduct.
[5] Consequently, having carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions of the
parties, I am persuaded that the Ministry has proven just cause for the discipline,
and a ten-day suspension is reasonable in the circumstances. The grievance is
hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 2nd day of May 2024.
“Deborah J.D. Leighton”
Deborah J.D. Leighton, Arbitrator