HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0417.Henry et al.06-10-11 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# 2005-0417
UNION# 2003-0530-0089
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Henry et al.)
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 Karen Martin & Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
September 28, 2006.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. Although the
Toronto Jail was not specifically covered by that protocol, at the outset of our session on
September 27, 2006, both the union and the employer agr eed to follow the protocol as closely as
possible. 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 ?Tru e Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each
provides the vice-chair with s ubmissions, which include the fact s and authorities each relies
upon. The process adopted by the parties provid es for a canvassing of the facts during the
mediation phase under the Protocol. Arbitration decisions are issu ed in accordance with Article
22.16 of the collective agreement, without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The
parties were unable to resolve this matter in mediation. A ccordingly, the matter has been
referred to me as a True Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
The three grievors complain that they were advi sed by other employees about a letter on the ?P?
drive concerning them. The ?P? drive is a ?p ublic? drive on the employe r?s server, and it is
accessible to all employees who have access to the se rver. The letter is reported to have been
written by an Acting Deputy Superintendent to th e Superintendent shortl y after the 2002 strike.
It is said to have contained al legation that the grievors engaged in improper activities prior to the
strike. The grievors state they had no prior knowledge of any su ch allegations, nor were they
aware that any investigation of such allegations took place. Afte r reading the letter some time in
November 2003, the grievors asked the then Superint endent to remove it from the ?P? drive.
3
The grievors did not save or print a copy of the lett er, nor did they check to see if the letter had
been removed from the ?P? drive after their re quest. The employer performed a search of the
?P? drive on September 27, 2006 and no trace of the letter was discovered.
Each of the grievors seeks a written apology and seven days of compensating time off. The
employer responds that any such letter must have been removed, and that it is indicative of the
seriousness of the issue that the grievors failed to keep a copy of the letter and failed to check to
see if the letter had been removed after they had made their request
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 11 day of October, 2006.
________________________
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair