GSB# 2001-1379, 2002-0001, 2002-0001, 2002-0001, 2002-0001, 2002-0179, 2002-0179, 2002-0332, 2002-0332, 2002-1116, 2002-2462, 2002-2463, 2002-2464, 2002-2574, 2002-2574

UNION# 01C979, 02C242, 02C244, 02C245, 02C243, 2002-0128-0117, 2002-0128-0023, 2002-0128-0066, 2002-0128-0067, 02C892, 2002-0128-0176, 2002-0128-0175, 2002-0128-0174, 2003-0128-0004, 2003-0128-0005

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Brydges)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Lucy Neal Senior Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

HEARING

May 4, 2006.

Decision

On February 2, 2004, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement regarding certain grievances filed by Mr. David Bridges, a Correctional Officer at the Sarnia Jail. It was agreed that I was to remain seized of any implementation difficulties that might arise in this regard.

Paragraph 4 of the Memorandum stated the following:

The Employer agrees to recognize the permanent workplace accommodation that has been in place since 1996. The Employer will schedule the grievor in accordance with his accommodation requirements. Furthermore, the Employer agrees that COR6.4 is not applicable where the grievor is being accommodated.

Subsequent to this Memorandum, Mr. Bridges was absent from the workplace and received Long Term Disability benefits. Recently his physician sent a report that the grievor is able to return to work but is to have "absolutely no inmate contact". The Employer next sent a letter to the grievor's physician asking a number of questions which led the grievor and the Union to the conclusion that the Employer is attempting to establish a new accommodation. Specifically it was the Union's concern that the Employer will circumvent or violate the Memorandum of Settlement.

After consideration of the facts and submissions in this matter, I understand the Union's concerns. The letter sent to the grievor's physician might lead one to think that the Employer is attempting to alter the deal set out in the Memorandum of Settlement signed in 2004. That would be inappropriate, and for that reason I am of the view that the grievor's physician need not respond to the offending letter.

The parties have agreed to the terms of the accommodation for this grievor in February of 2004. Those terms cannot be unilaterally altered. However, I do understand that the Employer might want clarification regarding the physician's statement regarding inmate contact. The Employer can write to Mr. Bridges' physician and inquire as to the meaning of "absolutely no inmate contact".

I remain seized in the event that there are further difficulties once the response to this inquiry is received.

Dated in Toronto this 9^th day of May 2006