HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0178.OPSEU.87-04-02TELEPHONi: rrs/59fi- OWE
0178/86
IN THE NATTER OF AN’ARBITPATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAlNlNG ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN:
Before:
For the Grievor:
I
For the Employer:
Hearing:
OPSEU (Local 5L9)
- And -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ontario Science Centre)
R. J. Delisle Vice-Chairman
G. Nabi Member
R. Roberts Member
A. Ryder
Counsel
Gowling & Henderson
L. Horton
Staff Relations Officer
Human Resources Secretariat
March 4, 1987
Grievor
Employer
? 5
.i
J
AWARD
This is a Union grievance which claims a violation of
Article 19.1 in that the employer is failing to take reasonable
steps to correct safety problems in servicing the Mechanical
Rooms at the Ontario Science Centre.
Thomas Waugh testified on behalf of the Union. Mr.
Waugh is a Maintenance Mechanic 3. He is also the Health and
Safety Officer with Local 549. Mr. Waugh has worked as a
Maintenance Mechanic at the Centre since 1981. The Mechanical
i Rooms contain the apparatus for the Air Supply Systems: heat
pumps, supply and return units, electrical panels. In servicing
the Air Supply Systems the mechanic is sometimes required to
crawl through the ducts which can be several hundred feet in
length. There are cat walks to traverse in the Mechanical Rooms
and the mechanics must often work in confined spaces. A number
of potential hazards present themselves. Mr. Waugh expressed his
concern that a maintenance mechanic who injured himself while
working alone in the Mechanical Rooms might go unnoticed for a
lengthy period of time.
Mr. Waugh testified that a number of cuts have been
made in the maintenance staff since he first joined, from
nineteen men down to seven. He testified that a buddy system
provided the necessary safety protection so that a worker would
not be on his own. Experiments had been conducted with walkie-
talkie systems butthey had been found wanting as their signals
were not strong enough to reach all areas. With the cutbacks in
staff a buddy was not as readily available as before. Mr. Waugh
2
testified that what was needed was a proper base from which a
good communications system could be mounted to ensure that no
worker was left completely on his own.
All of the above evidence seemed to make the grievance
plausible. However, in cross-examination Mr. Waugh testified
that whenever he had requested assistance, a buddy to ensure his
safety, he .had never been refused help. He testified that
employees have an obligation to attend to their own safety. He
testified that he refused to work alone in the Mechanical Rooms
and that his Supervisor, R. J. Harvey, had said that was no
problem. A buddy could be provided. Besides two maintenance
mechanics the maintenance staff has one plumber, one electrician,
one carpenter and two labourers. None of these workers testified
and Mr. Waugh stated he could not get them to agree to the
grievance. Mr. Waugh testified that he was unsure about what the
others did. He testifed that if the others needed assistance, a
buddy, they might have to wait to do the job until one was
available.
The safety problem described by Mr. Waugh in chief
existed in a worker being required to work alone in a hazardous
area. His evidence on cross-examination discloses that workers
were not required to work alone. A buddy would be provided.
After the close of the grievor's case the Board consulted and
decided that there was no case for the Ministry to meet.
Accordingly the grievance was dismissed.
3
Counsel for the Union asked us to set out in our
reasons that our determination was made on the basis of a finding
that the employer's policy was to always provide a buddy. This
we decline to do. We are not here to declare what the employer's
policy is but rather to judge the merits of a grievance presented
to us. On the basis of the evidence offered in support of this
grievance we find the grievance unsupportable.
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 1987.
&&.d-c~I.
R. J:Delisle, Vice-Chairman
G. .Nabi, Member
I?. Roberts, Member