HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01663.Blacquiere.23.10.27 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
GSB# 2023-01663
UNION# 2023-5112-0078
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Blacquiere) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Brian P. Sheehan Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Richard Dionne
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Emily Lewis
Treasury Board Secretariat
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING
October 10, 2023
-2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Toronto South Detention Centre agreed to
participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the
negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say,
that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each party
provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities
they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol
and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and, as such, it is without prejudice
or precedent.
[2] The grievor is employed as a Correctional Officer 2 at the Toronto South
Detention Centre (TSDC).
[3] In the fall of 2022, the Employer made available to Correctional Officers, the
Wounded Warriors Canada- Before Operational Stress (BOS) mental health on-line
training program. Staff were advised that they could complete the training program,
which consisted of 8 one-hour self-directed modules either at home or at work.
[4] On March 17, 2023, the Employer sent out a memo to staff advising that if they
completed the program at home, they would receive compensation of 12 hours
overtime.
[5] The grievor completed the BOS training at work on July 6, 2023, because she did
not have a computer at home.
[6] The grievor claims she had a conversation about the training that same day with
Sergeant David Cranley, an Institutional Training Manager at TSDC. According to the
grievor, Sergeant Cranley advised the grievor if she sought to be paid for completing the
course, she should do it again at home. The grievor claims that she completed the
-3 -
training the following day using her “smart phone”. However, the grievor was not able to
receive confirmation of the completion of the course on July 7, 2023, because the
software indicated that she had already completed the course the previous day.
Nevertheless, the grievor submitted the certificate dated July 6 to Sergeant Cranley,
and she signed the overtime sheet for 12-hours overtime.
[7] On August 3, 2023, the grievor emailed Sergeant Cranley inquiring if he had
been in touch with Deputy Superintendent Shao regarding approval for her being
compensated for taking the course at home on July 7, 2023.
[8] Sergeant Cranley, in a reply email dated August 3, 2023, indicated to the grievor
that he did speak to the Deputy Superintendent, and that she would not be
compensated for taking the course again at home as her certificate indicated a
completion date of July 6, 2023, rather than a non-workday as was required.
[9] While the frustration of the grievor is at one level understandable, it is my view
upon reviewing the relevant facts, that there is no basis for the grievance to succeed. It
would appear without dispute that compensation for taking the BOS course outside of
work was predicated on the employee being issued a certificate indicating that the
course had been completed on a non-workday. Absent such a certificate being issued,
the Employer would not have a basis to confirm that the employee actually completed
the course outside of work. Because the grievor had been issued the certificate for
taking the course at work on July 6th, the system would not recognize or issue a
certificate with a date of July 7, 2023, and the grievor was advised by the administrator
that the date on the certificate could not be changed.
[10] Moreover, even if it was accepted that the grievor did complete the course fully a
second time on July 7th, there is no basis to suggest that she was entitled to be paid
-4 -
with respect to completing the course. The Employer’s offer was that an employee had
the option of completing the program at work or at home. The grievor took the option of
doing it at work and was paid for doing so. It arguably belies common sense that the
Employer would have made an unequivocal representation to the grievor that she would
receive additional compensation for completing the course a second time, and the
submitted facts do not suggest otherwise.
[11] In light of the above reasoning, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 27th day of October 2023.
“Brian P. Sheehan”
Brian P. Sheehan, Arbitrator