HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1760.Derby.12-10-15 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2010-1760
UNION#2010-0642-0040
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Derby) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Tim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Caroline Markiewicz
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING September 20, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Monteith 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] Brian Derby is a Correctional Officer who received a one-day suspension for “refusing
the escort duty post” and for “insubordination”.
[3] As the result of an unfortunate set of circumstances and what appears to have been poor
communication all round, the grievor was sent home without pay for ten hours in addition to the
one day suspension.
[4] There was some dispute about the facts in this case. Those differences are not surprising.
There is no question that there was a significant lack of communication on both sides. Further, it
would appear that what little information was shared was done so in a manner that virtually
ensured misunderstanding.
[5] Taking all of the peculiar facts into account I am of the view that discipline was
warranted but a one-day suspension was too harsh.
[6] The Employer is to amend the letter of August 27, 2010 to reflect a letter of reprimand
and reimburse the grievor one day’s pay. No monies are owing for the grievor’s absence from
work on August 10, 2010.
[7] I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto this 15th day of October 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair