GSB#1991-1470, 1992-3080

UNION# 91E069, 93A167

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Hyland)

Grievor

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Public Safety and Security)

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

David Wright Ryder Wright Blair & Doyle Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER

John Smith Senior Counsel Management Board Secretariat

HEARING

December 1, 2003.

DECISION

At the hearing on Monday, December 1, 2003, counsel made submissions on the issue of Mr. Hyland’s work placement, having regard to the Employer’s obligation to accommodate his handicap. Mr. Hyland is a Correctional Officer who has asthma, with a particular sensitivity to cigarette smoke. His home position is at the Toronto East Detention Centre (“Toronto East”). In a decision dated November 13, 2002, I found that the Employer was unable to provide Mr. Hyland with an appropriate accommodation at the Toronto East and I directed the Employer to find an appropriate position for him elsewhere. In a letter dated February 19, 2003, the Employer offered to accommodate Mr. Hyland with a position at the Toronto West Detention Centre (“Toronto West”). Mr. Hyland rejected this offer. The submissions of counsel on December 1^st focused on whether it would be appropriate in the circumstances to assign Mr. Hyland to work at either the Toronto West, the Central East Correctional Centre (“Central East”), located at Lindsay, or the Brookside Youth Centre (“Brookside”), located near Cobourg. A related issue arises from the Union’s claim that Mr. Hyland is entitled to be paid a mileage rate for the additional distance that he would be required to travel from his home to the Toronto West or to Brookside, which in each case is greater than the distance from his home to the Toronto East.

After considering the evidence and the submissions, it is my conclusion that the appropriate placement for Mr. Hyland is at Brookside. It is also my conclusion that Mr. Hyland is not entitled in the circumstances to be paid a mileage rate for the additional 19 kilometers, each way, which is the extra distance that he will be required to travel from his home to Brookside compared to the distance from his home to the Toronto East. The reasons for these conclusions will follow in due course. I will remain seized to resolve any disputes relating to Mr. Hyland’s placement or other unresolved issues flowing from these grievances.

Dated at Toronto, this 4^th day of December, 2003.