Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1118.Laflame.89-06-25 ·: · ONTARIO EMPLO Y~'S DE LA COUFtONNE ' '" ' ""'* ' CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS ?80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO· MSG 1Z8- SUITE2100 TELEPHONE/T~-L~PHONE. 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8 - BUREAU 2100 (416) 598-0688 ' 1118/88 < IN THE H~TTER OF AN ARBITRATION ~ Under ~ THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCESETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Laflamme) Grievor .... - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario. (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer Before: N.V. Dissanayake' - Vice-Chairperson J. $olberg - Member H.~Roberts' .-- Member APPEARING FOR M.A. Kuntz '., THE GRIEVOR: Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union APPEARING FOR J.F. Benedict THE EMPLOYER: Manager,, Staff Relations and Compensation Human Resources~Management " ' Ministry of Correctional Services HEARI'NG: Ma~ch i5, 1989 AWARD This is a grievance alleging a violation of article 18.1 of the collective agreement, which reads as follows: 18.1 The Employer shall continue to make reasonable provisions for the safety and health of its employees,during the hours of their, employment. It is agreed ~hat both the Employer and the Union shall co-operate to ~he fullest extent possible in the prevention of accidents and in the~reasonable promotion of safety and health of ail employees. At the hearing in this matter, after receiving the evidence of the grievor, the Board unanimously orally dismissed the grievance without calling on the Employer to lead its evidence. The grievance relates to the washroom facilities for female correctional o~ficers at 5he Niagara Detention Centre, where .~he grievor is employed as a Correctional Officer 2. The griev6r has held the position of union steward for the last 6 years and has previously'.been the local union's Vice-President and representative on the Health and Safety. Committee. T~e' evidence indicates that the female C.O.s felt their washroom facilities were inadequate at least going back to the time the grievor commenced, her employment in 1977. At the time they were permitted to use the 3 sergeants' washroom. Sometime in the. summer of 1928, the Superintendent of %he jail announced ~ha~ a new female washroom was being c~nstructed as'part of a majcr renovation undertaken by the Employer. When the renovation plak was finalized, the new' female washroo~ was t© be lo~ated away from 5he correctiOnal-officers' lunch r°om~ and locker room area and -towards the area · where off~ce ~staff is located. The ~rievor suggested a number of' alternati'v~S, but that did not cause the Employer t~ alter the location it had sete%.ted. The grievor filed-this grieva'nce in anticlpa~ion of ~he new ~lo~at~on of ~he' washroom. The Board was advised that th~ con~t~ction of ~he new washroom was completed and put int~"use about two weeks before this matter came to a hearing. The crux of the Grievor's complaint, is, that to ge~ to the new female washroom she has to ~o through three or four centrally contr61ied Grills'and that as a result k it' takes twice ~'as l~ng. She t~S~ified that if everything is normal-that does not cause9 any concern but if there is an emergency on the floor while she is visiting the W~shroom, sh~ will not be able to respond to it~quickly. Also, because of the fac{ that she now 4 has to go through a number of grills, she has to announce to the central control desk that she is going to the washroom. Based on this evidence, the Board was of the view that the grievor had not made out' a prima facie case of a violation of article 18.1, which the Employer had to meet. It is obvious that the grievor is unhappy about the location of the washroom. Ic may be that the location selected by the Employer is inconvenient to the female employees and reduces the efficient operation of The institution. It is also possible that the alternatives suggested by the grievor would have been preferable in that regard. Even if we assume that this is so, the fact remains that those are not issues for this Board tO decide. Article 18.1 requires the Employer to make reasonable provisions for the safety and health of its employees during work hours. The evidence of the grievor, simply does not support a finding that the location of the female washroom Doses any threat to her safety and health. It is for that reason that the Board orally ruled dismissing the grievance. Thgt oral ruling is hereby confirmed. Dated this 25th day of May, 1989 at Hamiiton, .Ontario Nimai V. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson J. $olberg Member