GSB#2008-1400

UNION#2008-0642-0015

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Clancy)

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

Scott Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Brian Scott Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer

HEARING

March 30, 2010.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Monteith Correctional Complex agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Most of the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few remained unresolved and therefore require a decision from this Board. The Protocol provides that decisions will be issued within a relatively short period of time after the actual mediation sessions and will be without reasons. Further, the decision is to be without prejudice and precedent.

2Mr. Kevin Clancy is a Maintenance Welder who received a one day suspension in the spring of 2008. In the letter of discipline, dated April 22, 2008, it was stated the Mr. Clancy made out purchase orders for equipment that a Maintenance Welder “would not purchase or use”, including two XXL rain suits, a water filtration system and vehicle tail-lights. The Employer provided a copy of “Shop Purchase Requests” filled out by the grievor that failed to note the reason for purchases for only those items that are suspicious. A list of equipment the grievor had requested was also provided and the Employer was of the view that the grievor had been ordering this equipment for his personal use. For example, the rain gear that was ordered was in the grievor’s size and the ordered rain gear would fit no one else in the department.

3Mr. Clancy denied these allegations as he had throughout the Employer’s investigation. He provided a copy of a memo he wrote during the investigation explaining a number of the items he had ordered. He stated that he ordered the water filtration system because it was more safe, economical and environmentally superior to the bottled water provided in the area. Further, he said that “for the better of all maintenance staff I was going to show why we require proper protective clothing” and that “this was not a selfish action or strictly for my own benefit but an action for the benefit of all maintenance staff”.

4The grievor also noted that he does not have the power to purchase. In this and in all other instances, he merely made out a requisition which the Employer could choose to accept or reject. Therefore, it is improper to suggest that he was trying to purchase these items for his own use.

5The Employer replied that no one else in the department could have made use of the rain gear given the size “ordered” by the grievor and, further, it is not a coincidence that the only items without description that the grievor requested were of questionable value to the Employer. Finally, the Employer noted that the issue of the water filtration system had gone to the Health and Safety Committee and the bottled water was the resolution. Therefore, it is highly improper of the grievor to attempt to order an expensive piece of equipment that was not approved.

6It was agreed between the parties that the grievor had no discipline on his file at this time.

7I understand why the Employer questioned these requisitions. Indeed, I appreciate why the Employer became suspicious of the particular items requested. The items do not seem to be of the sort that a bargaining unit maintenance welder would order.

8I have no hesitation in finding that a one day suspension was too harsh in these circumstances. I accept the Employer’s contention that the grievor knew or ought to have known that his ability to requisition equipment has certain constraints. Further, I am of the view that some of the equipment requested is outside of those limitations.

9Additionally, I find that some of the grievor’s justifications for the ordering the water filtration system and the rain gear questionable.

10Accordingly, I order that the suspension be rescinded and replaced with a verbal warning. The record shall be altered to reflect this order and the grievor should be appropriately compensated.

11I remain seized in the event of implementation difficulty.