HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-2218.Haring.14-03-19 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#2013-2218, 2013-2219
UNION#2013-0234-0319, 2013-0234-0320
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Haring) 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 Jackie Crawford
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Victoria Fichtenbaum
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING March 10, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex agreed to
participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the
negotiated Protocol. Many of the grievances were settled through that process. However,
a few grievances 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] Ms. Debbie Haring filed two grievances. The first alleges that the Collective Agreement
was breached because a supervisor performed bargaining unit work when she wrote a
particular report. According to the grievor, this was compounded by incorrect statements
made in the report. By way of remedy the grievor wanted the “false statement” to be
retracked and “four training days to be used at my discretion”.
[3] The second grievance filed a few days later alleges a breach of article 2. As I understand
the fact surround this second grievance, the grievor received an email reminding her that
she had not signed in for a particular shift despite an earlier reminder to all staff about
signing in for work. The grievor claims that this email was discipline and harassment and
constituted anti-union animus as the result of her filing her first grievance.
[4] The Union reviewed the facts concerning these grievances and, simply put, there is no
violation of the Collective Agreement. However, to be clear, even if there was a violation
of the first grievance, I would not have the jurisdiction to award the requested remedy.
[5] Regarding the second grievance, the email sent to the grievor is not discipline and there is
no evidence that it was sent for any other reason than its stated intention to remind her to
sign in for work.
- 3 -
[6] Accordingly the grievances are denied.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 19th day of March 2014.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair