Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2291.Sabourin et al.10-09-29 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#2009-2291 UNION#2009-0234-0155 Additional Files listed in ?Appendix ?A? IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Sabourin et al) 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, Laurie Sabourin, Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers FOR THE EMPLOYER Sean Milloy, Victoria Fichtenbaum, Karen Martin Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officers HEARING September 21, 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 in this case relates to the employer?s use of a male CET officer during an activation, contrary to the employer?s stated policy. The grievors allege the employer?s action caused them harm as male employees who have in the past been prevented or dissuaded from becoming part of the CET team and seek human rights damages. The employer relied on the fact that there was the possibility of imminent harm to the inmate or others, and the use of the male officer, although contrary to the employer?s policy, was justified in the circumstances. The employer affirmed its ongoing commitment to the policy, and characterized this event as an aberration brought on by emergency circumstances. [3]After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievances should be dismissed. th Dated at Toronto this 29 day of September 2010. Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair - 3 - ?Appendix ?A? OPSEU File GSB Grievor NumberNumber Mironchuk, Terry 2009-0234-0175 2009-2342 Kurczak, Robert 2009-0234-0193 2009-2810 Reinhart, Jim 2010-0234-0057 2009-3298 Bartniki, Andrew 2010-0234-0020 2009-3312 Blenkinsop, Shane 2010-0234-0021 2009-3313 Campbell, Wayne 2010-0234-0023 2009-3315 Cochrane, Christopher2010-0234-0025 2009-3317 Cordeiro, Emanuel 2010-0234-0027 2009-3319 Duff, John 2010-0234-0031 2009-3323 Good, Brian 2010-0234-0032 2009-3324 Guichelaar, Roger 2010-0234-0033 2009-3325 Howell, John 2010-0234-0039 2009-3331 Hulley, Don 2010-0234-0040 2009-3332 Klacik, Don 2010-0234-0041 2009-3333 Kurczak, Robert 2010-0234-0042 2009-3334 Marshall, Gordon 2010-0234-0045 2009-3337 McQueen, Mark 2010-0234-0046 2009-3338 Mironchuk, Terry 2010-0234-0048 2009-3340 Niemann, Michael 2010-0234-0052 2009-3344 Noble, Earle 2010-0234-0053 2009-3345 Noble, Earle 2010-0234-0055 2009-3347 Quigley, Ronald 2010-0234-0056 2009-3348 Rucko, Mark 2010-0234-0060 2009-3352 Sinclair, Bob 2010-0234-0061 2009-3353 Smith, Philip 2010-0234-0062 2009-3354 Smith, Scott 2010-0234-0063 2009-3355 Sponagle, Angus2010-0234-0064 2009-3356 Vetsavong, Steven 2010-0234-0065 2009-3357