Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-1354.Charles et al.17-12-12 DecisionCrown 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# 2002-1354; 2002-2476; 2003-4063; 2004-3640; 2006-0144; 2007-2322; 2016-2860 UNION# 2002-0517-0001; 2002-0517-0073; 2003-0368-0034; 2005-0368-0008; 2006-0999- 0003; 2007-0369-0083; 2017-0368-0023 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Charles et al) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Bram Herlich Arbitrator FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel FOR THE EMPLOYER Peter Dailleboust Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel HEARING December 8, 2017 -2- DECISION [1] The parties have requested that I assist them in resolving an issue that has arisen in relation to the implementation of my prior award in this matter. They have agreed that this determination ought to be made following the procedural dictates of Article 22.16 of the collective agreement. They made concise submissions on the issue in question before me and asked that I issue a “bottom line” decision. [2] There is no dispute that, as a general proposition, an inmate escort requires the assignment of two COs who have completed the relevant training or of three COs who have not. Where there are insufficient COs available to perform a required escort, the employer retains a discretion to make other arrangements, which could include securing the services of police to perform the escort. [3] The question is: In circumstances where there is but a single CO available to perform a required escort, is the employer required to so assign that CO along with police (e.g. one CO and one police officer)? [4] In my view, the answer to this question is no, the employer is not so required. The posited facts constitute a circumstance where the requisite number of COs is unavailable, thus triggering the employer’s discretion to make alternate arrangements in the assignment of the work. I was not pointed to anything that would require the composition of what (if this were the construction industry) might be described as a “mixed crew” and neither am I prepared to impose such an unusual requirement solely by inference. [5] I trust this resolves the parties’ issue. Issued in Toronto this 13th day of December, 2017. “Bram Herlich” __________________________ Bram Herlich, Arbitrator