GSB# 2004-2175
UNION# 2004-0234-0518
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 “systematically harassed” by another employee, who was a nurse at the institution at the time. The other employee has since left the employ of the ministry. The grievor alleges that the other employee harassed him, employed passive aggressive behaviour to “push my buttons”, acted like “…everyday was a new experience…”, deliberately acted forgetful as to what he said to her. The grievor seeks $100,000 for “months and months” of harassment. The employer responds that the difficulty between the grievor and other employee was a personality conflict, not harassment, and that the employee in question has since left the employ of the Ministry.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the facts do not support a conclusion that the grievor was subjected to systematic harassment. The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of February, 2006.