HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0334.HARRISON94_09_12
ONT4RiC EMPi J} E5 l)E LA Ci JL I", WNF
CRUWN EMPL OYEES DE UN 4HIC
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT ,
REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
/80 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO ONTARIO M5C L8 TFLEPHONE TELEP1tOt .J I ~ ] 188
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G IZ8 FACSlr,;/lLE r[,-ECOr It-,I I" /39!J
0334/94
IN ~HE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN:
OPSEU (G. HARRISON)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services)
Employer
Before J.H. Devlin, Vice Chairperson
For the Grievor. B. Ahad
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer M Mously
Grievance & Negotiation Officer
Correctional Services Division
Ministry of the Solicitor General
and Correctional Services
Hearing August 25, 1994
,
1
The Grievor, Gary Harrison, is employed as a
Correctional Officer at the Mimico Correctional Complex and
claims that in staffing the night shift, the Employer has failed
to make reasonable provision for his health and safety, contrary
to Article 18 1 of the collective agreement
The Mimico Correctional Complex is a medium security
facility which is comprised of six buildings adjacent to a
central courtyard Five of the buildings house the correctional
centre and the sixth building houses the detention centre which
was opened in November, 1993 On the night shift, the "red-line"
(which the Employer describes as a staffing guideline) provides
for the assignment of thirteen Correctional Officers to the
correctional centre and three to the detention centre. A
Correctional Officer from the correctional centre is then
assigned to cover meal breaks of Correctional Officers at the
detention centre.
It was the position of the Union that the reduction in
staff below the red-line in the correctional centre (to cover
meal breaks at the detention centre) places the Grievor at
greater risk in that there are fewer Correctional Officers
available to respond in the event of an emergency The Union
further contended that the Grievor is exposed to increased risk
when assigned to provide relief in the detention centre as there
is a delay in response time In this regard, the Union indicated
2
that as there is no intercom system, an emergency message must
first be relayed to the Control Officer who, in turn, alerts the
Grievor
While the Union need not demonstrate actual harm to
make out a violation of Article 18 1 of the collective agreement,
nevertheless, it must establish that there is a potential for
harm which is not merely speculative or remote. In this case,
based upon the statements which were filed, I cannot conclude
that the Grievor is exposed to an inappropriate or unnecessary
risk as a result of the manner in which the Employer provides
meal relief in the detention centre In the circumstances,
therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the Employer has
failed to make reasonable provision for the health and safety of
the Grievor and, accordingly, the grievance is dismissed
DATED AT TORONTO, this 12th day of September, 1994
r1~ Y\ ~L
Vice Chairperson