HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1311.Stevens.06-05-23 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# 2005-1311
UNION# 2005-0517-0029
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Stevens) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Faith Crocker
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING May 17 2006
2
DeCISIon
The partIes have agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol It IS not necessary to
reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to an "True
MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn" process, whereIn each provIdes the vIce-chair wIth submIssIOns, whIch
Include the facts and authontIes each relIes upon. The process adopted by the partIes provIdes
for a canvaSSIng of the facts dunng the medIatIOn phase, although the vIce-chair has the
dIscretIOn to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. ArbItratIOn decIsIOns are Issued In
accordance wIth artIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement, wIthout reasons, and are wIthout
preJudIce or precedent.
The gnevance In thIS case relates to Glen Stevens Mr Steven states that In 2003 he found out
through talk In the InstItutIOn that he was the subJect of a WDHP complaInt and an IIU
InVestIgatIOn. He alleges that In 2005 he dIscovered that he was also the subJect of an ongOIng
human nghts complaInt wIth respect to the 2002 IncIdent, but that he had never been advIsed of
thIS fact. He claims a breach of proper procedures and protocol, and seeks compensatIOn for the
damage to hIS reputatIOn.
The employer responds that the gnevor was advIsed In July 2003 that the allegatIOns agaInst hIm
had been InvestIgated and that the InVestIgators had concluded that the allegatIOns had not been
substantIated. Further the employer states that there IS an ongoIng human nghts complaInt
InvolvIng the same complaInant, but that that matter does not Involve Mr Stevens
3
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that the gnevance should be dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 23rd day of May 2006