Greg Ireland

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for failing to intervene in an altercation between two inmates and for allegedly kicking an inmate while he was on the floor.

The arbitrator found that the grievor failed to take timely action to stop the assault, such as giving verbal commands or using pepper spray.

However, the arbitrator concluded that the grievor's contact with the inmate's leg was a minimal push to gain compliance, which was inappropriate but did not constitute an excessive use of force under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Given the grievor's long service and clean disciplinary record, the termination was substituted with a 30-day unpaid suspension.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force by directing an inmate's head into a steel door frame and failing to properly document the incident.

The union grieved the termination and the forfeiture of unused vacation credits.

The arbitrator reviewed video evidence and expert testimony, concluding that the grievor intentionally pushed the compliant inmate into the door frame, constituting an excessive use of force.

The arbitrator also found the grievor failed to accurately report the incident.

Given the serious breach of trust and the grievor's lack of remorse, the termination was upheld.

The grievance regarding the forfeiture of vacation credits was also dismissed as the employer's actions complied with the collective agreement.

During a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of a correctional officer for alleged excessive force, the employer sought to call a Ministry employee as an expert witness on use of force.

The union objected to the expert providing an opinion on the specific facts of the case, arguing that the tribunal did not need expert assistance and that the proposed expert lacked impartiality due to his employment and prior assistance to the Crown at the grievor's criminal trial.

The arbitrator ruled the expert evidence admissible, applying the Mohan and WBLI tests.

The arbitrator found that the technical aspects of use of force in a correctional facility met the necessity criterion, and that the expert's employment and prior involvement went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, as there was no evidence he was unwilling or unable to discharge his duty to be independent and impartial.

The union grieved the discharge of a correctional officer who was terminated for using excessive force against an inmate during a strip search.

The incident, captured on video, showed the inmate tossing his sweater toward the grievor, who reacted by punching the inmate in the back of the head and taking him to the ground.

The arbitrator found that the inmate posed no threat and that the grievor's use of force was unnecessary, unlawful, and contrary to his training.

Given the grievor's short service, failure to take responsibility, and the serious nature of the misconduct, the grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The employer proposed to call an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on whether the grievor, a correctional officer, complied with use of force regulations and policies during an incident with an inmate.

The union brought a motion to exclude the portion of the expert's evidence relating directly to the application of force by the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the expert opinion evidence is admissible and denied the union's motion.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for using excessive force against an inmate, submitting an inaccurate occurrence report, and violating the Statement of Ethical Principles.

The incident involved three phases, culminating in the grievor delivering a distractive strike to the inmate's head while the inmate was restrained on the ground by several other officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was the aggressor, the force used was excessive and unauthorized, and his occurrence report was deliberately incomplete and inaccurate.

The termination grievance was dismissed.

A separate grievance regarding unreasonable delay in the investigation process was partially allowed, with the grievor awarded compensation for one month of delay.