HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-2424.Gordon.10-03-19 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
règlement des griefs
Settlement 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#2008-2424
UNION#2007-0368-0210
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Gordon)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews, Frank Inglis
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Gary Wylie, Laura McCready, Bart Nowak
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARINGMarch 4, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not
necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have
agreed to a ?True Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each provides the Vice-Chair
with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision
is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective
agreement, and is without prejudice or precedent.
[2]The grievance alleges that the employer failed to properly accommodate the grievor with
respect to personal issues that involved her ability to work with a co-worker. The failure
to accommodate is alleged to have occurred with respect to a request that the grievor be
temporarily transferred to another institution, and with respect to whether the employer
made appropriate accommodations when the employee returned to work at CECC after a
period of sick leave.
[3]The employer alleges that the grievor made the decision not to pursue re-assignment to
another institution. In addition, the employer challenges the grievor?s assertions that the
working arrangements were not adequate to her needs when she return to work at TEDC.
[4]There are two areas of conflicting evidence that I could not resolve in the medarb
process. First, the grievor and the employer do not agree on the reasons why efforts to
have the grievor transferred temporarily were discontinued. Second, the grievor and the
employer do not agree on the adequacy of the arrangements made for the grievor?s return
to work. In my view, this matter should be set down for hearing under the Expedited
- 3 -
Arbitration process set out under Paragraph 7.3 of the Protocol, at a date to be arranged
by the parties.
[5]Under the protocol, I remain seized with this matter.
th
Dated at Toronto this 19 day of March 2010.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair