Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1541.Jurcic.17-11.24 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB#2017-1541 UNION#2017-0708-0015 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Jurcic) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Arbitrator FOR THE UNION Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Caroline Markiewicz Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor HEARING November 15, 2017 -2- Decision [1] The Employer and the Union at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. A number of the grievances were settled through that process. However, this grievance remained unresolved requiring a decision from this Board. The Protocol provides that decisions will be issued within a relatively short period of time after the actual mediation sessions and will be without reasons. Further, the decision is to be without prejudice and precedent. [2] Mr. Max Jurcic is a Correctional Officer at the Correctional Centre. Notwithstanding the policy that cell phones should be left either in one’s vehicle or locker, Mr. Jurcic took a cell phone into the workplace one evening and checked for messages. This fact was discovered by the Employer while reviewing video surveillance regarding another matter. For this violation of policy Mr. Jurcic received a two-day suspension. [3] The Union urged that there were extenuating circumstances in this case. On the evening that the grievor took his phone into the workplace, his daughter was in hospital. He was anticipating news from his spouse in this regard. It was conceded that some level of discipline was warranted but suggested that given the fact that the grievor was without discipline of any sort on his file, the discipline should be reduced. [4] The Employer noted that the period of time that the grievor was looking at his phone was approximately a minute and given that his assignment that evening was a constant watch of an inmate, a two-day suspension is warranted. [5] After considering the facts and submissions of the parties, I am of the view that there is just cause for discipline. However, given all of the evidence presented a one-day suspension is the appropriate quantum. -3- [6] Accordingly, the record should be altered to show a one-day suspension and the grievor is to be compensated for one day lost wages. I remain seized. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24th day of November 2017. Felicity D. Briggs, Arbitrator