GSB#2011-3193

UNION#2011-0368-0213

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Butsch)

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

Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Laura McCready Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

May 2, 2012.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional 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.

2Chris Butsch filed a grievance that alleged improprieties arising from the Employer’s implementation of its ASMPP program. Specifically he took issue with the fact that the Employer cannot arbitrarily chose the Union steward to represent him at any meetings held to discuss his attendance. Further, it was asserted that by improperly choosing his representative and notifying that person of an impending meeting, the Employer disclosed information about his status within the attendance program, which is a violation of his privacy.

3The grievor was sent a letter informing him that his attendance at a meeting was required. That letter stated, in part, “you are welcome to have a Bargaining Agent Employee Representative present at this meeting. In this regard, I have taken the liberty of inviting Ms. X, OPSEU Local Representative to the above noted meeting.”

4The Employer maintained that because only a few union officials are prepared to attend meetings regarding the ASMPP, it merely chose an official from that short list to assist the grievor.

5I accept that there were no mala fides in the Employer’s actions. Unfortunately, that is not how the Employer’s actions were perceived by the grievor.

6In any event, I find that the Employer cannot choose the Union representative for any grievor at a meeting of the ASMPP. Further, the Employer should not give notice to any steward to attend such a meeting until the individual who is the subject of the meeting has made his or her wishes known in this regard.

7The grievor asked for $500 plus 12 hours of vacation time as damages.

8The rights of union members to chose their own representatives is a long standing and well understood underpinning of labour relations. It is beyond comprehension that this Employer would violate so fundamental a tenet. While I accept that the Employer did not act in bad faith, it nonetheless disclosed certain information about the grievor to a person not of his choosing. As I understand the facts, the disclosed information was limited to the grievor’s standing within the program.

9For that breach I order the Employer to pay the grievor $200.00 damages within a reasonable period of time.

10I remain seized.