HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-3193.Butsch.12-05-14 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#2011-0368-0213
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#2011-3193
AN ARBITRATION
Under
B
Ontario Public Sployees Union
(Butsch) 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
Tim Mulhall
O
G
ntario Public Serv
rievance Officer
s
s
Laura McCready
Ministry of Government Service
C
E
entre for Employee Relation
mployee Relations Advisor
HEARING May 2, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional 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] Chris Butsch filed a grievance that alleged improprieties arising from the Employer’s
implementation of its ASMPP program. Specifically he took issue with the fact that the
Employer cannot arbitrarily chose the Union steward to represent him at any meetings
held to discuss his attendance. Further, it was asserted that by improperly choosing his
representative and notifying that person of an impending meeting, the Employer
disclosed information about his status within the attendance program, which is a violation
of his privacy.
[3] The grievor was sent a letter informing him that his attendance at a meeting was required.
That letter stated, in part, “you are welcome to have a Bargaining Agent Employee
Representative present at this meeting. In this regard, I have taken the liberty of inviting
Ms. X, OPSEU Local Representative to the above noted meeting.”
[4] The Employer maintained that because only a few union officials are prepared to attend
meetings regarding the ASMPP, it merely chose an official from that short list to assist
the grievor.
[5] I accept that there were no mala fides in the Employer’s actions. Unfortunately, that is
not how the Employer’s actions were perceived by the grievor.
[6] In any event, I find that the Employer cannot choose the Union representative for any
grievor at a meeting of the ASMPP. Further, the Employer should not give notice to any
- 3 -
steward to attend such a meeting until the individual who is the subject of the meeting has
made his or her wishes known in this regard.
[7] The grievor asked for $500 plus 12 hours of vacation time as damages.
[8] The rights of union members to chose their own representatives is a long standing and
well understood underpinning of labour relations. It is beyond comprehension that this
Employer would violate so fundamental a tenet. While I accept that the Employer did not
act in bad faith, it nonetheless disclosed certain information about the grievor to a person
not of his choosing. As I understand the facts, the disclosed information was limited to
the grievor’s standing within the program.
[9] For that breach I order the Employer to pay the grievor $200.00 damages within a
reasonable period of time.
[10] I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto this 14th day of May 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair