HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1318.Theriault.11-11-03 DecisionCommission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV
Settlement Board
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
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 7pO
Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
GSB#2005-1318
UNION#2005-0618-0035
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Theriault)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Children and Youth Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews, Tim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Nicholas Sapp
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARINGOctober 19, 2011.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties agreed to present this grievance in accordance with Article 22.16 of the
collective agreement, and this decision is without prejudice or precedent.
[2]In December 2004 the grievor was pregnant, and her doctor provided a medical
certificate restricting the grievor to working between the hours of 07:00 and 20:00 in order to
avoid the risk of slipping and falling when conducting rounds on the property. On December 29,
the grievor agreed to an accommodation plan stipulating that she would work a shift from 07:00
to 15:00. However, the implementation of plan was delayed until after the holiday season, and
was to begin on January 10. On January 3 at 19:35 the grievor was at work on an evening shift,
when she slipped on ice and fell, sustaining an injury.
[3]The union alleges the employer EUHDFKHGWKHJULHYRU¶VGXW\to accommodate by delaying
the implementation of the accommodation plan. The result was that the grievor sustained the
very type of injury her restrictions were meant to avoid. The employer responds that the grievor
was working within the time frame stipulated by her restrictions, and for that reason the fall
cannot be attributed to the accommodation plan having been slightly delayed.
[4]After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my
conclusion that the grievance should be allowed.
- 3 -
The grievor would not have been working the shift in question had the accommodation plan not
been delayed. There is no evidence that an immediate introduction of the accommodation plan
would have caused the employer undue hardship. As a result, the grievor is awarded $2,500.00
in damages.
rd
Dated at Toronto this 3 day of November 2011.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair