Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1626.Denhartogh.08-11-28 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#2006-1626 UNION#2005-0135-0015 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Denhartogh) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Barry Fisher FOR THE UNION Tim Hannigan Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE EMPLOYER Lisa Amin Counsel Ministry of Government Services HEARING November 28, 2008. 2 Decision [1]This award is pursuant to the Med-Arb process and is without precedent. The grievor is a Correctional Officer at a provincial jail. She was a witness in a previous GSB case wherein she testified that she saw one Correctional Officer assault another Correctional Officer. The Correctional Officer who committed the assault was discharged and filed a grievance. The GSB found that the said Correctional Officer had committed the assault. However, the discharge was overturned and instead the Correctional Officer was reinstated with a one-month suspension. [2]The said Correctional Officer returned to the workplace in 2005, and throughout that period and up to today, the grievor has continued to work at the jail. [3]Upon this Correctional Officer?s return to work, the grievor has strongly felt that her safety and health is at risk because of a fear of retaliation against her by the said Correctional Officer. She has related incidents involving uncomfortable situations when the two of them were in the same room, passing in the hallway, and other such interactions. [4]Management has tried to schedule these two parties on opposite shifts; however, given the size and scheduling needs of the institution, this simply has not been feasible. As a result, over the last few years, the grievor has been forced to decline shifts to avoid having to be in the jail at the same time as the said Correctional Officer. [5]I have concluded therefore that the grievor?s continuing presence at the jail alongside the said Correctional Officer poses an unacceptable risk to the grievor?s health and safety, and that no accommodation within the institution is possible. [6]The grievor has requested a transfer to Central North Correctional Centre, in Penetang. I therefore order her to be transferred to the next available full-time Correctional Officer position for which she is qualified. As this transfer is made at her request, all expenses related to the transfer are her responsibility. [7]In an effort to compensate her for the time off she took while an unclassified Correctional Officer, I also order that her continuous service date be credited with 20 weeks, for collective agreement purposes, without monetary compensation. Any benefits or entitlements that could be derived from this adjustment to her continuous service date shall be on a go-forward basis only, and non-retroactive. It is further understood that this continuous service date adjustment does not affect her pensionable service date, or anything whatsoever to do with the pension, as I am without authority to bind the pensions trust. 3 [8]For clarity purposes, it is not the intention of this award to require the employer to pay any monies whatsoever to the employee. I reserve jurisdiction over any issues regarding the interpretation or implementation of this award. th Dated at Toronto this 28 day of November, 2008. Barry Fisher, Vice-Chair