Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-3226.Jalea.15-03-09 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#2014-3226 UNION#2014-5112-0154 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Jalea) 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 Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor HEARING March 5, 2015 - 2 - Decision [1] The Employer and the Union at the Toronto South 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, this grievance remained unresolved requiring 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] Mr. Raymond Jalea filed a grievance after an incident with his supervisor involving an assignment of certain work. The grievor was of the view that the work he was being asked to do was contrary to usual practice and policy. He thought he was being “provoked” by his supervisor when he was told that he was being “directed” to do the work and further he felt threatened when the supervisor told him to “watch” him. [3] The grievor was not disciplined as a result of this incident but he felt strongly that usual practice and policies should be followed in the assignment of work and that the supervisor should not have threatened him. One of his remedial requests was that it become known within the institution that he was not disciplined as the result of this matter. He worried that his “good and clean” reputation of thirty-three years had been “discredited.” [4] There has been no violation of the Collective Agreement. The grievor did not receive any discipline and it would be an understatement to say that there is nothing improper for a supervisor to make clear that an order is being given when an employee is asked to carry out an assignment of work. Further, I am not convinced that being told to “watch” for his supervisor was intended to be threatening. [5] Accordingly, the grievance is denied. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 9th day of March 2015. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair