Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-2568.Richer.10-10-18 Decision en.n EiJJpIo)II!es Grievance Settlement Board Commission de riglement des griefs des~dela eor.ome ~ smte mo 180 IJlndas 5t WesI TCJRJrm. QBiD IofiG 1ZB Tel (4-16) 326-1388 Fax (4-16) 326-1396 Ibeau mo 100. rue IJlndas Ouest TCJRJrm (0nIari0) M5G 1ZB Tel: (4-16)326-1388 T~ : (4-16) 326-1396 ontario GSB#2009-2568 UNION# 2009--0411-0226 IN THE MATIER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COlLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETILEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Richer) limon - aad - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Minis1Iy of Comrmmity Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Felicity D_ Briggs Vtre-Chair FOR THE UNION Laurie Sabourin Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Gary Wylie Minis1Iy of Government Services Employee Relations Divisioo. Employee Relations Advisor lIEAKING October 5~ 2010_ -2- Decision [1] The Employer and the Union at the Ottawa Carleton Detention 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 reason5_ Further~ the decision is to be without prejudice and precedent [2] Yvan Richer is a Correctional Officer who received a ten-day suspension for a variety of reasons inclllmne a failure to declare a conflict and delivay (or attempted delivay) of contraband to an inmate_ It was the Employer~s view that its investigation substantiates the allegations and accordingly the level of discipline was appmpriate_ In the altemative~ because of the grievor~s attitude when confronted with these allegations included a total lack of remorse~ the penalty should remain unaltered [3] The Union urged that the suspension was too severe_ The grievor stated that while many of the allegations were true, he was not guilty of all_ He thought that the Superintendent at the time was "'out to get him~ _ He also did not recall that he was belligerent or showed any inappropriate conduct during the grievance procedme_ [4] After reviewing the documentation I am of the view that the grievor did violate various policies as aIlegal It may be that he is not guilty of evay -3- allegation as set out in the letter of discipline_ However, those allegations that, in my view, were substantiated by the Employer are of a nature that would bring about a considerable penalty_ Further, I believe the Employer's assertion that the grievor did not appreciate the sienificance of the infractions_ I am also not convinced that the grievor accepted responsibility and was remorseful for his actions_ During his discussion in the medlarb process, the grievor continued to explain that the Employer was wrong about a number of issues and stated that he was treated harshly_ There seemed insufficient recognition ofhis indiscretions_ [5] Having said that, I also understand the Union's submissions that a ten day suspension is a significant penalty and too harsh in these circumstances_ [6] For those reasons, the suspension is reduced to six. days_ [1] I remain seized of the implementation of this decision. Toronto this 18th day of October 2010_ - Felicity D_ Briggs, Vice--Chair