Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1239.Union.07-02-02 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas Sl. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de reglement des griefs des employes de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under Nj ~ Ontario GSB# 2006-1239 UNION# 2006-0368-0068 THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union Grievance) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Barry Stephens Scott Andrews Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union Karen Martin Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services December 14, 2006. January 17,2007. Union Employer Vice-Chair 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-Arbitration" process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol. Arbitration decisions are issued 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. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol. FACTS This grievance concerns the assignment of employees in the food servIce area to supervIse inmates in the washing of kitchen uniforms. The union states that employees in the food service area spoke out at a staff meeting about their concerns regarding the cleanliness of the uniforms being worn by inmates working in the kitchen. The employer responded by installing a washer and dryer in the kitchen area, and by assigning employees in the area to supervise inmates while they were cleaning the uniforms. The union alleges this decision was a retaliation for the fact that the employees raised a concern, and argues that the work in question should properly be performed by laundry services. Employees in the kitchen are trained in the supervision of inmates, but the union argues that such supervision should properly be limited to inmate activities related to the preparation of food, not the laundering of uniforms. The employer responds that it considers the kitchen the best area in which to launder the uniforms, and that the 3 work in question is sufficiently related to kitchen work that employees can properly be assigned to oversee inmate in that area performing the laundry work. DECISION The grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of February, 2007.