HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1414.Collins.89-10-10~.( Dt~TAF~;O E~V~LOY£S DE LA COURONNE
~. CROWN EMPLOYEEE DE t.'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMlSSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSG 1Z8-SUITE2100 TELEPHON£/T~L£PHONE
180, RilE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G 1Z8. BUREAU 2100 ~4~ 6) 598-06~8
1414/88
IN THE MATTEB OF AN ARBITRATION I
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
OPSEU (Collins)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services)
Empl oye r
Before:
R.L. Kennedy' Vice-Chairperson
G. Nabi Member
A. Merritt Member
For the Grievor: B. Lambert
Counsel
Lambert, Kuchar & Nesker
'~arristers & Solicitors
For the Employer: L. Oudyk
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Correctional Services
Bearing: September 13, 1989
AWARD~
The Grievor challenges a letter of reprimand issued by the
Employer under date December 13, 1988 in which the material
allegation of the Employer is defined in the following terms:
(You) failed to attend at the trial of your probationer
Jennifer Stevens, whom you had charged with Fail to Comply
with a Probation Order, held for trial at Provincial Court
(Criminal Division), 1000 Finch Ave. W., Downsview, Ontario
M3J 2V5, on Septemer 14, 1988.
The letter of reprimand contained two additional allegations,
which at the outset of the hearing the Employer's representative
stated would not be pursued and that the letter of reprimand for
the purposes of the Grievor's file would relate only to the
allegation set out above.
The Grievor is employed as a Probation Officer, has 22 years
of service and no disciplinary record. It was agreed between the
parties that on the relevant date the Grievor did fail to attend
at the trial of a probationer for whom he was responsible and.
against whom he had laid a charge of willful non-compliance with
the terms of a probation order. It was also agreed that at the
time in question'the Grievor was engaged on a similar matter in
another court. The parties disagreed on whether the Grievor had
followed proper procedures in dealing with the conflict in trial
dates, and they further disagreed on how the Grievor's conduct
should be characterized in all the circumstances. The Grievor's
substantive position as stated by his counsel was that the
appropriate response of the Employer in the circumstances should
have been a letter of counselling rather than a reprimand.
After some evidence had been heard from the Employer,
discussions, took place between the parties, and the board was
subsequently advised that there was agreement on the terms of the
award that should be issued by this board. Accordingly, it is
our award and we do direct that the letter of reprimand be
replaced by a counselling letter in the same terms but which it
is understood can be referred to in any future disciplinary
proceedings relating to similar incidents that occur subsequent
to the date hereof should the need arise.
DATED this 10th day of October, 1989..~~
R.L. Kennedy, Vice-Chairperson
G. Nabi, Member
A. Merritt, Member