GSB#2009-2010

UNION#2009-0108-0093

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Thomas)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian M. Keller

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Scott Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Sean Milloy Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer

HEARING SUBMISSIONS

November 30, 2009. January 29, March 9, 2010 and April 4, 2010.

Decision

1The grievor was suspended for 20 days as a result of an incident alleging excessive use of force with respect to an inmate. An investigation concluded that the excessive use of force occurred as alleged. Subsequently, the grievor was disciplined for not fully cooperating with the investigation, excessive use of force when physically engaging an inmate, failure to submit proper Occurrence Report regarding the use of force and engaging in a course of action intended to cover up and/or diminish the significance of the use of force.

2I have had the benefit of reading the investigation report and supporting documents, including the transcripts of the interviews with the COs involved, as well as that of the grievor. I also heard, in person, the explanations of the grievor and of the employer. Finally, I have carefully considered the subsequent written submissions of the parties.

3Based on the above, it is my conclusion that discipline is warranted. The only remaining question is whether the 20 day suspension was appropriate. I have concluded that it was.

4While the various versions of the event provided by the COs involved in the incident are not identical, there is sufficient common ability among them to conclude that the reason given by CO Thomas for his initial actions was not accurate. I also conclude that the subsequent force used by CO Thomas was not commensurate with the behaviour of the inmate. Finally, his version of events, as provided to the investigator, and in his written report, is not consistent with the events described by other COs, when read and compared.

5The grievance is dismissed.