Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-1379.Brydges.06-05-24 Decision Crown Employees Commission de Nj Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs Board des employes de la Couronne ~ Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario 180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2001-1379 2002-0001 2002-0179 2002-0332,2002-1116 2002-2462,2002-2463 2002-2464 2002-2574 2002-2574 UNION# 01C979 02C242,02C244 02C245 02C243 2002-0128-0117 2002-0128-0023 2002-0128-0066 2002-0128-0067 02C892,2002-0128-0176 2002-0128-0175 2002-0128-0174 2003-0128-0004 2003-0128-0005 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Brydges) Union - and - The Crown m RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE FelIcIty D Bnggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Lucy Neal Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING May 24 2006 2 DeCISIon On May 9, 2006, I Issued the followmg decIsIOn On Febnmry 2, 2004, the partIes entered mto a Memorandum of Settlement regardmg certam gnevances filed by Mr DavId Brydges, a CorrectIOnal Officer at the SarnIa JaIl It was agreed that I was to remam seIzed of any llnplementatIOn dIfficultIes that mIght anse m tlus regard Paragraph 4 of the Memorandum stated the followmg The Employer agrees to recognIze the permanent workplace accommodatIOn that has been m place smce 1996 The Employer wIll schedule the gnevor m accordance wIth Ius accommodatIon reqUIrements Furthermore, the Employer agrees that COR6 4 IS not apphcable where the gnevor IS bemg accommodated Subsequent to thIS Memorandum, Mr Brydges was absent from the workplace and receIved Long Term DIsabIhty benefits Recently Ius physIcIan sent a report that the gnevor IS able to return to work but IS to have "absolutely no mmate contact" The Employer next sent a letter to the gnevor's physIcIan askmg a number of questIOns whIch led the gnevor and the UnIon to the conclusIOn that the Employer IS attemptmg to estabhsh a new accommodatIOn SpecIfically It was the UnIon's concern that the Employer wIll CIrCUInvent or vIOlate the Memorandum of Settlement After consIderatIOn of the facts and submIssIOns m tlus matter, I understand why the UnIon's concerns The letter sent to the gnevor's physICian mIght lead one to thmk that the Employer IS attemptmg to alter the deal set out m the Memorandum of Settlement sIgned m 2004 That would be mappropnate and for that reason I am of the VIew that the gnevor's physIcIan need not respond to the offendmg letter The partIes have agreed to the terms of the accommodatIOn for tlus gnevor m Febnmry of 2004 Those terms cannot be unIlaterally altered. However, I do understand that the Employer mIght want clarIficatIOn regardmg the physIcIan's statement regardmg mmate contact The Employer can wnte to Mr Brydges' physICian and mqUIre as to the meanmg of "absolutely no mmate contact" 3 I rem am seIzed m the event that there are further dIfficultIes once the response to thIS mqUIry IS receIved. As IS apparent from the above, thIS decIsIOn was Issued because the UnIon was of the VIew that the Employer was attemptmg to ask questIOns of the gnevor's physIcIan whIch were mappropnate gIven the Memorandum of Agreement In the event that It was not clear m my above order, I agreed wIth UnIon's assessment Further, I ordered that the smgle area of appropnate mqUIry deals wIth the Issue of what constItutes "absolutely no mmate contact" The UnIon brought tlus matter back before me because It receIved an amended letter from the Employer whIch, m my vIew, IS m dIrect contraventIOn of my order I am concerned not only that an order of the Board has been so slavIshly dIsregarded by tlus Employer but that hann IS bemg done to the remtegratIOn of the gnevor mto the workplace The UnIon has asked for damages m tlus regard. I am prepared to hear submIssIOns and make a determmatIOn as to whether thIS IS an appropnate mstance for damages to be ordered. However, at thIS pomt, gIven that the gnevor has a medIcal appomtment m the very near future, I wIll defer the matter of damages I order that the gnevor have Dr AnnIsette respond to the followmg letter In a Febnmry 2, 2006 letter you mdIcated that Mr Brydges IS to have "absolutely no mmate contact" ThIS restnctIOn appears to be as a result of hIS physIcal dIsabIhty of the "left shoulder due to severe rotator cuff dIsease, as well as a full thIckness nght rotator cuff tear of the nght shoulder" The Employer IS consIdenng an accommodatIOn for Mr Brydges to work nIghts m the Control Module However, we need to understand what you meant by "absolutely no mmate contact" If Mr Brydges was assIgned to the Control Module, It wIll happen that he wIll see mmates eIther m the hall from tllne to tllne or through a glass partItIOn The Employer reqUIres 4 confirmatIOn that there are no physIcal or emotIOnal reasons to dIsallow such a work assIgnment Further, I order that the letter wntten by Nell NevIlle dated May 18, 2006 that the gnevor was mstnlcted to gIve to Dr Anmsette be dIsregarded. I rem am seIzed of the Issue of damages Dated, Toronto, tl~lS 24th day of May, 2006 .