Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2010.Thomas.10-05-04 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#2009-2010 UNION#2009-0108-0093 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Thomas) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREBrian M. Keller Vice-Chair FOR THE UNIONScott Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYERSean Milloy Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer HEARING November 30, 2009. SUBMISSIONS January 29, March 9, 2010 and April 4, 2010. - 2 - Decision [1]The grievor was suspended for 20 days as a result of an incident alleging excessive use of force with respect to an inmate. An investigation concluded that the excessive use of force occurred as alleged. Subsequently, the grievor was disciplined for not fully cooperating with the investigation, excessive use of force when physically engaging an inmate, failure to submit proper Occurrence Report regarding the use of force and engaging in a course of action intended to cover up and/or diminish the significance of the use of force. [2]I have had the benefit of reading the investigation report and supporting documents, including the transcripts of the interviews with the COs involved, as well as that of the grievor. I also heard, in person, the explanations of the grievor and of the employer. Finally, I have carefully considered the subsequent written submissions of the parties. [3]Based on the above, it is my conclusion that discipline is warranted. The only remaining question is whether the 20 day suspension was appropriate. I have concluded that it was. [4]While the various versions of the event provided by the COs involved in the incident are not identical, there is sufficient common ability among them to conclude that the reason given by CO Thomas for his initial actions was not accurate. I also conclude that the subsequent force used by CO Thomas was not commensurate with the behaviour of the inmate. Finally, his version of events, as provided to the investigator, and in his written report, is not consistent with the events described by other COs, when read and compared. [5]The grievance is dismissed. th Dated at Toronto this 4 day of May 2010. Brian M. Keller, Vice-Chair