GSB#2009-2568

UNION# 2009-0411-0226

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Richer)

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

Laurie Sabourin Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Gary Wylie Ministry of Government Services Employee Relations Division Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

October 5, 2010.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre 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.

2Yvan Richer is a Correctional Officer who received a ten-day suspension for a variety of reasons including a failure to declare a conflict and delivery (or attempted delivery) of contraband to an inmate. It was the Employer’s view that its investigation substantiates the allegations and accordingly the level of discipline was appropriate. In the alternative, because of the grievor’s attitude when confronted with these allegations included a total lack of remorse, the penalty should remain unaltered.

3The Union urged that the suspension was too severe. The grievor stated that while many of the allegations were true, he was not guilty of all. He thought that the Superintendent at the time was “out to get him”. He also did not recall that he was belligerent or showed any inappropriate conduct during the grievance procedure.

4After reviewing the documentation I am of the view that the grievor did violate various policies as alleged. It may be that he is not guilty of every allegation as set out in the letter of discipline. However, those allegations that, in my view, were substantiated by the Employer are of a nature that would bring about a considerable penalty. Further, I believe the Employer’s assertion that the grievor did not appreciate the significance of the infractions. I am also not convinced that the grievor accepted responsibility and was remorseful for his actions. During his discussion in the med/arb process, the grievor continued to explain that the Employer was wrong about a number of issues and stated that he was treated harshly. There seemed insufficient recognition of his indiscretions.

5Having said that, I also understand the Union’s submissions that a ten day suspension is a significant penalty and too harsh in these circumstances.

6For those reasons, the suspension is reduced to six days.

7I remain seized of the implementation of this decision.