HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-2375.Ward.09-11-03 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#2007-2375, 2008-2079, 2008-2660, 2008-2661, 2008-2662, 2008-2663
UNION#2007-0234-0276, 2008-0234-0218, 2008-0234-0280, 2008-0234-0281, 2008-0234-0282,
2008-0234-0283
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Union
(Ward)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREFelicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONAnastasios Zafiriadis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERGary Wylie
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARING
October 29, 2009.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]Since October of 2007, the grievor, Ms. Sylvie Ward has filed six grievances.
Ms. Ward was a Provincial Bailiff and her grievances made numerous allegations
against the Employer. In a Memorandum of Settlement signed in January of 2009
the parties agreed that Ms. Ward would receive a health reassignment. She has
been working as a Correctional Officer since that time and is quite content with
her new workplace.
[2]It was agreed in the January Memorandum of Agreement that her outstanding six
grievances would be heard in accordance with an expedited med/arb process.
During the course of the mediation/arbitration of these grievances, when it
became apparent that a mediated resolve was not forthcoming, the parties agreed
that I would issue a decision that does not review the facts or submissions.
Further, the decision is to be without precedent or prejudice. It was suggested that
the decision would be a ?bottom line? order. Accordingly, given my view that
there was merit to some of the allegations, I am of the view that the Employer
should pay the grievor $5,000. I remain seized in the event of implementation
difficulties.
rd
Dated at Toronto this 3 day of November 2009.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair