Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0885.Hartmann et al.07-03-05 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# 2004-0885, 2004-3169 UNION# 2004-0229-0009, 2004-0229-0034 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hartmann et al.) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles and Scott Andrews Grievance Officers Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Pauline Jones and Faith Crocker Staff Relations Officers Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services HEARING February 19, 20 & 21, 2007. DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS March 2, 2007. 2 Decision INTRODUCTION The Ministry and OPSEU have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. Although OCI is not one of the institutions covered by the protocol, the parties agreed on February 19, 2007 to be bound by the terms of the protocol for this session. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have agreed to a “True Mediation-Arbitration” process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this matter in mediation. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol. FACTS The grievors are both CO2’s who are married to each other. At the time of the grievances they both worked at OCI. On the day in question, they were both assigned to work in the same range. The OM16 on duty appears to have believed that it was improper for the grievor’s to work together in the same range, and that such an arrangement was a breach of Ministry policy regarding the potential for conflict of interest between family members. He made arrangements to separate the grievors, so that they were assigned to different ranges for the remainder of the shift. 3 The grievor’s allege they were no breach of the Ministry policy, which is focused on reporting relationships. They allege the OM16’s actions were a breach of their human rights based on marital status, and that the change caused them embarrassment with their coworkers. The employer concedes that the working relationship in question was not a breach of the Ministry’s policy, and advises that steps were taken after the incident in order to clarify this matter with managers at OCI. The parties differ over the question of the amount of compensation, if any, that is due to the grievors. DECISION The grievor’s are to be credited with 12 hours compensating time each. I will remain seized to deal with any issues arising from the implementation of this award. Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of March, 2007. Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair