HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1811.Surowiec.09-11-17 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#2008-1811, 2008-1812, 2008-1813
UNION#2008-0368-0079, 2008-0368-0080, 2008-0368-0081
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
(Surowiec)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREFelicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONFrank Inglis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERGary Wylie
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARING
October 22, 2009.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional Centre agreed to participate
in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated
Protocol. Most of the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few
remained unresolved and therefore require 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]In August of 2008 the Employer issued a memorandum informing Correctional Officers
that, in ?in order enhance the personal modesty of female offenders? it was going to
schedule so as to provide that ?during strip search procedures at CECC?. unless an
unusual circumstance prevents the assignment of a female officer to the Female
Admitting and Discharge Area, that staff assigned are female?. The document also
reproduced a section of the Adult Institutions Policy and Procedures Manual which sets
out the appropriate process for female strip searches which is based upon the recognition
that ?a significant number of female inmates have experienced sexual abuse?.
[3]This memo was a follow up to an earlier one dated June 5, 2008 that stated:
In order to provide for greater protection in terms of personal modesty, I
am requesting that unless an unusual circumstance prevents the
assignment of a female officer, that only female officers be assigned as
?back-up? officers.
Therefore, please reassign male officers to replace female officers
assigned elsewhere (i.e. pod) to be ?back-up? officer in the Female A & D
area when required.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated and will enhance the
processing of courts/new arrivals.
[4]Three male Correctional Officers filed grievances which allege they have discriminated
against on the basis of their gender. It was further alleged that a poisoned work
environment was created by the Employer as the grievors were ?subject to several taunts
and jokes by fellow officers regarding my ability to effectively perform the functions of
my assigned work?. By way of remedy the grievors asked for an apology from the
- 3 -
Employer to all male officers, a number of weeks of vacation to be taken at their
discretion and $100,000.
[5]I find, with no hesitation, that this is not a case of discrimination against male officers.
Indeed, it is difficult for me to understand the allegation given the clearly stated and
operationallybone fide reasons for the change in schedules.
[6]As stated during the course of hearing this matter, I have concerns that claims of
?discrimination? in fact situations such as this where there is clearly no discrimination
may, over the course of time, cause actual instances of discrimination to be treated with
less gravitas than they otherwise deserve.
[7]Further, it is beyond my comprehension why the grievors would think that in these
circumstances one hundred thousand dollars in damages is appropriate for each grievor.
[8]After hearing all of the facts, I do appreciate that it might have been better had the
Employer called together all of the officers for a meeting to explain the reasons for the
schedule changes prior to the memo being sent.
[9]However, I am of the view that there is no violation of the collective agreement and
therefore the grievances are denied.
th
Dated at Toronto this 17 day of November 2009.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair