Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-2251.Toplin.06-10-12 Decision Commission de Crown Employees Grievance Settlement règlement des griefs Board des employés de la Couronne Suite 600 Bureau 600 180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2003-2251 UNION# 2003-0248-0137 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Toplin) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Vice-Chair Barry Stephens FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Mary-Jo Knappett Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services HEARING May 24, 2006 SUBMISSIONS September 1, 2006. 2 Decision INTRODUCTION The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have agreed to a ?True Mediation-Arbi tration? process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with submissions, which include the facts and author ities each relies upon. The process adopted by the parties provides for a canvassing of the fact s during the mediation ph ase under the Protocol. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, without reasons, and are without prejudice or preceden t. The parties were unable to resolve this matter in mediation. Accordingly, the matte r has been referred to me as a True Mediation/Arbitration deci sion under the Protocol. At the beginning of the session on May 24, 2006, it was determined that the union had not provided the employer with full or appropriate Ap pendix B?s, as required under the Protocol, and as a result, the employer had been unable to prepare appropriate Appendix C?s. I met with the representatives of the parties, and it was agreed the three-day mediati on session would proceed. In order to assist the parties, I advised that the union would be expected to prepare appropriate Appendix B?s prior to the discussion of any speci fic case. This they did, and, in the process, numerous grievances were withdrawn by the uni on. The employer then reviewed each grievance, and mediation was attempted. There were a number of grievances referred to arbitration, and the employer was provided with a full opportunity to submit formal Appendix C?s after the session. 3 FACTS The grievor is under the Attendance Support Program, (ASP). He alleges that the employer has failed to given fair considerati on of his need for an individuali zed threshold throughout his time in the program. The union asserts that, althoug h he was granted individualized targets at Level 3, had he been granted such consideration earlier he would not be in the program at all. The grievor is seeking removal from the program. The employer responds that individualized targets under the ASP must be supported by medical documentation. INTERIM DECISION The grievor is directed to pr ovide the employer with current medical documentation to support an individualized target. If such informa tion is provided, the employer is directed to immediately review the grievor?s attendance target in light of su ch medical information. I will remain seized to deal with any other issues a nd any issues arising from the implementation of this decision. th Dated at Toronto, this 12 day of October, 2006. ________________________ Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair