HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-1474.Black.18-03-19 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#2016-1474
UNION# 2016-0369-0034
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Black) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity Briggs Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER David Marincola
Treasury Board Secretariat
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING DATE January 24, 2018
- 2 -
DECISION
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Central North 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] Darryll Black is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievance that alleged “that the
Employer has violated Articles 2, 21 and any applicable laws, act, statutes or
legislation by excessively suspending me, and failing to show evidence during the
investigation. By way of remedy the grievor requested to be made whole and have
his file cleared of any reference to his three-day suspension.
[3] The grievor was disciplined as the result of facts surrounding use of his “personal
electronic device” (cell phone) in the secure part of the institution. There was video
in this regard shown to the Board that the grievor had not seen prior to the med/arb
session.
[4] There was a dispute between the parties regarding whether the Union was
provided with notice of this video in accordance with the provisions of the Collective
Agreement. The Union urged the Board to disallow the video evidence as a result.
[5] While I understand the Union’s frustration regarding the video evidence and how
it thought the matter came to the attention of the Employer in the first instance I
will admit and consider it. The Employer’s investigation report stated that
“information came to the attention of Senior Administration that it was possible that
a Correctional Officer on Unit 5 was showing a cell phone to an inmate.” Simply
- 3 -
put, the Union fell short of convincing me that the evidence was obtained and
utilized contrary to the provisions of the Collective Agreement.
[6] The grievor was suspended as the result of three allegations. One was that the
grievor allowed an inmate to look at information on his cell phone. In my view, the
video did not clearly show such an infraction.
[7] After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties I order that the
suspension be reduced to two days. The letter of discipline should be amended to
comply with this order and the grievor is to be compensated for one day of losses.
[8] I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 19th day of March, 2018.
“Felicity Briggs”
_______________________
Felicity Briggs, Arbitrator