GSB# 2004-2162, 2004-2167
UNION# 2004-0234-0505, 2004-0234-0510
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rudden et al.)
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 grievors worked an overtime shift on August 16, 2004 from 0800 to 1600. At approximately 1050 hours that day, handcuffs were found in an inmate’s shoe, and a health and safety work refusal was commenced by another correctional officer. A search was conducted. At approximately 1545 hours the grievors and one other employee were ordered to remain at their posts until the search was completed in their unit. At some point thereafter the employer declared an emergency situation. Other correctional officers on duty on other units during the incident had been released at the end of their shifts. The employer stated that this decision was made after staff members expressed the view that the search on the other units could be safely completed the next day. Inmates continued to receive yard and visitation privileges. The grievors allege that the emergency declaration only came after they had questioned the decision to hold them beyond their scheduled shifts. The grievors further allege that the decision to hold them back was a form of retribution for the work refusal. They claim compensation of 12 hours lieu time as well as $500 cash.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the evidence does not prove a violation of the collective agreement. As a result, the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of February, 2006.