GSB 2009-2497, 2009-2498, 2009-2534

UNION#2009-0128-0063, 2009-0128-0064, 2009-0128-0066

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Tyler)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

M.B. Keller

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Scott Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Greg Gledhill Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer

HEARING

August 26, 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.

2These grievances are related to an allegation by the grievor that the employer did not adequately respect its obligation relating to a non-contact, non-communication order pertaining to an inmate and the grievor as a result of threats against the grievor.

3The order had been active at least from August 29, 2009. The employer was aware of the order. The incident giving rise to the grievances occurred on October 29, 2009. The inmate had previously been housed in the institution on October 13, 2009. The grievor, at the time did not work the same area as that in which the inmate was housed and acknowledged he had no contact or communication with the inmate at that time.

4The grievor was on a RDO on October 28 and 29, 2009. On his return to work he determined he was a GDO 2 in various areas, one of which included the area in which the inmate was housed. The inmate had arrived at the jail on October 27.

5The grievor went off sick that day, produced a medical note on November 3 and did not return to work until late November. His sick leave absence was not approved for October 29, 30 and 31. He seeks payment for those days, top-up for the remainder of his absences, lost overtime and damages.

6After reviewing the submissions of the parties it is my conclusion that the grievances should be allowed in part. The grievor is to be compensated 33.5 hours, at the hourly rate then in effect, for his sick time on October 29, 30 and 31.

7Additionally, the employer is to pay the grievor $200, without any deductions, for its failure to properly assign the grievor on October 29. It was aware of the Order (See Paragraph 3) and had two days from the time the inmate arrived at the jail to ensure that the grievor would be assigned away from the grievor.

8I decline to award other compensation sought. The inmate was convicted but released on October 30, his sentence being 5.5 months, time served. The grievor’s doctor put him on sick leave subsequent to that. To award compensation I would have to find a causal relationship between the actions of the employer and the reason for the sick leave.

In my view, it is reasonable to assume that the principle cause for the sick leave subsequent to the inmate’s release was no longer the issue regarding the workplace but, rather, that the inmate had been released.