GSB # 1948/93, 179/94, 236/94
OPSEU # 93F955, 94A574, 94A608
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (O'Brien) Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE: Deborah J.D. Leighton, Vice Chair
FOR THE GRIEVOR: Tim Hadwen, Counsel, Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER: Len Marvy, Counsel, Legal Services Branch, Management Board Secretariat
HEARING: June 23, 2000
Decision
This grievance was settled by Memorandum of Settlement, which was made an order of the Grievance Settlement Board (the board) on August 1, 1995. On December 22, 1999 the union asked the board to reconvene to allow Ms. Helen Finley, the original arbitrator, to address issues relating to the implementation of the settlement. The parties agreed to further minutes of settlement on March 13, 2000. As part of those minutes, the parties agreed that certain issues would proceed to arbitration and others to mediation-arbitration before me. The outstanding issues relate to "The Systemic Change Program" which the parties have been jointly developing over the last several years.
The hearing into the implementation of the Memorandum of Settlement, proceeded on June 23, 2000. The parties settled several matters without any assistance before putting three issues before me. The first, implementing the memorandum of Settlement with the exception of the issues which are to go to arbitration, was then agreed to by the employer. This agreement is found in the minutes of June 23, 2000 so it is not necessary to record it here.
The second issue regarding a "tracking" system was not an issue that could be fairly dealt with by the "med-arb" process. The parties are opposed on whether manager's names should be included in a tracking system, which would list any individual found to have harassed or discriminated against another, on a prohibited ground. This is to proceed to hearing in August.
The parties agreed to a med-arb process for the third issue, which relates to the mediation process which they have developed for resolving conflicts between two or more employees. The employer wants language included in the mediation model found in the "Systemic Change Program," as follows:
The mediator will pre-screen, normally by telephone and in consultation with the co-ordinator shall determine whether the conflict is appropriate for mediation.
Originally the employer proposed that the co-ordinator would decide whether the conflict could be mediated or not. The employer is concerned about costs.
The union opposes language which proscribes the method of screening, because in it's view how a case is screened should depend on the particulars of the case. The union's proposed language is as follows:
The mediator will pre-screen and shall determine in consultation with the co-ordinator whether the conflict is appropriate for mediation. The mediator will pre-screen in a cost effective and confidential manner.
Since the parties were unable to agree, it falls to me to decide the issue, based only on the positions and documents presented during the mediation. The parties agreed that no reasons would be provided for the decision.
Having carefully considered the positions and the arguments of the parties, I have decided that the union should prevail. I hereby order that the language proposed by the union, and noted above, be included in the mediation provisions of the "Systemic Change Program."
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of July, 2000.