Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gordon) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 CanLII 18861

GSB#2008-2424

UNION#2007-0368-0210

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gordon)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Barry Stephens

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Scott Andrews, Frank Inglis Grievance Officers Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Gary Wylie, Laura McCready, Bart Nowak Staff Relations Officers Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

HEARING

March 4, 2010.

Decision

1The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to a “True Mediation-Arbitration” process, wherein each provides the Vice-Chair with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and is without prejudice or precedent.

2The grievance alleges that the employer failed to properly accommodate the grievor with respect to personal issues that involved her ability to work with a co-worker. The failure to accommodate is alleged to have occurred with respect to a request that the grievor be temporarily transferred to another institution, and with respect to whether the employer made appropriate accommodations when the employee returned to work at CECC after a period of sick leave.

3The employer alleges that the grievor made the decision not to pursue re-assignment to another institution. In addition, the employer challenges the grievor’s assertions that the working arrangements were not adequate to her needs when she return to work at TEDC.

4There are two areas of conflicting evidence that I could not resolve in the medarb process. First, the grievor and the employer do not agree on the reasons why efforts to have the grievor transferred temporarily were discontinued. Second, the grievor and the employer do not agree on the adequacy of the arrangements made for the grievor’s return to work. In my view, this matter should be set down for hearing under the Expedited Arbitration process set out under Paragraph 7.3 of the Protocol, at a date to be arranged by the parties.

5Under the protocol, I remain seized with this matter.