HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-2368.Ireland et al.12-04-18 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2007-0229-0019, 2007-0229-0020, 2007-0229-0009, 2010-0229-0016
IN THE MATTER ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Fa
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
GSB#2007-2368, 2007-2369, 2009-2075, 2010-2759
OF AN
Before
B
Ontario Publioyees Union
(Irel) Union
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
c Service Empl
land et a
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
lmes LLP
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Ed Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Ho
Barristers and Solicitors
Services
ractice Group
Omar Shahab
Ministry of Government
Labour P
Counsel
HEARING April 5 & 11, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] Robert Bujeya, Daphne Ireland and Jeff Johnston are Correctional Officers at Ontario
Correctional Institute. Each filed a grievance that alleges various violations of the
Collective Agreement after the Employer demanded they undergo an Independent Medical
Evaluation. Included in the allegations are claims that the Employer’s request for an IME
was motivated by anti-union animus. The Union was also of the view that under no
circumstances is the Employer entitled to oblige Correctional Officers to have an IME.
[2] On the first day of hearing after fulsome opening statements from the parties it became
apparent that the evidence the Union intended to call regarding these grievances would
potentially overlap with facts to be heard in another matter involving the same parties
before this Vice Chair at the Grievance Settlement Board.
[3] I raised this matter with counsel to ascertain whether consolidation of these files would be
appropriate. Various details were discussed to ensure all issues would be addressed. It was
agreed that similar facts and issues are raised in both proceedings and that it is in no one’s
interest to have the two cases heard separately. Accordingly, I order that these matters be
consolidated on the basis agreed to by counsel at the hearing.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of April 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair