HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1505.Cote.14-10-15 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#2005-1505, 2005-1506, 2005-3595
UNION#2005-0108-0031, 2005-0108-0032, 2005-0108-0067
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Cote) 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 Nick Mustari
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING October 7, 2014
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre 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. Ellen Cote has been a CO2 since 1991. In 2005 she worked a shift in A & D with a
Correctional Officer who was being accommodated. During that shift, she raised
concerns with her manager about her coworker including her views about the capacity of
that CO. Some of her basis of concern was as the result of speaking with other coworkers
about the accommodated CO. She stated that she felt unsafe working with the
accommodated CO due to her underlying condition. She later filed incident reports
regarding specific inmates.
[3] The accommodated CO eventually learned of the grievor’s accusations and confronted
her with anger.
[4] The grievor was later asked to file an occurrence report regarding the entire matter and a
meeting was held with the grievor to discuss her report and her allegation regarding the
accommodated CO. During that meeting the grievor became distraught and was absent
from the workplace for some time due to the stress of the situation.
[5] Ms. Cote filed three grievances alleging that her health and safety was put at risk as the
result of having to work with another CO who was being accommodated. By way of
remedy, amongst other things, she requested:
• The safety and security breach of any one person and the institution never
happens again due to known hazard factors;
• Time off not counted as sick time (not put in the loop);
- 3 -
• Pay for period is “topped up” to full pay for 40 hours per week;
• Paid 50% of all overtime incurred in the building during time off;
• All expenses for treatments incurred and for the next years, that is not covered by
the employee benefit plan, is paid by the employer;
• Full employee health benefits be paid by Employer until my death;
• Written apology from the Employer;
• Be given missed training;
• $500,000. For pain and suffering;
• Ms. X (the accommodated CO) and I be treated with dignity and respect;
• Training for Managers who deal with and deploy accommodations.
[6] In my view, there has been no violation of the health and safety provisions – or any other
provisions – of the Collective Agreement and therefore the grievance is denied. There
was no evidence of any risk to the grievor or the inmates during the shift in question - or
at any other time - as the result of this accommodated CO working in the institution.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 15th day of October 2014.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair