GSB# 2004-1447
UNION# 2004-0234-0397
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Magee)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Rena Khan Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
December 13, 2005.
Decision
The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol for the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to an expedited process wherein each party provides the vice-chair with written submissions, which include the facts and authorities the party intends to rely upon, one week prior to the hearing. At the hearing, oral evidence is not called, although the vice-chair is permitted to request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to the vice-chair that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex or significant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through “regular” arbitration. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts prior to the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with article 22.16 of the collective agreement and, therefore, are without precedent.
The grievor alleges that he was harassed with respect to his medical accommodation. The incidents alleged to constitute harassment are: the employer removed him from his work area to perform searches; he was asked to stay until the end of his shift with no overlap from the officer arriving to relieve him; and inappropriate comments have been made about his need for accommodation.
The employer responds that the grievor is accommodated to work 8 hours of a 12 hour shift. The remaining 4 hours are generally filled by an unclassified employee, and there is no need for overlap in such circumstances. With respect to searches, the employer states that such duties do not conflict with the grievor’s accommodation and the decision to so assign him is an operational decision within the purview of management rights.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, the grievor is awarded $250.00 in damages.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of February, 2006.