Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Appleyard et al) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 CanLII 34858

GSB#2009-1387, 2009-1388, 2009-1389, 2009-1390, 2009-1391, 2009-1392, 2009-1393, 2009-1394, 2009-1395, 2009-1403, 2009-1404, 2009-1405

UNION#2009-0530-0059, 2009-0530-0060, 2009-0530-0061, 2009-0530-0056, 2009-0530-0057, 2009-0530-0058, 2009-0530-0053, 2009-0530-0054, 2009-0530-0055, 2009-0530-0067, 2009-0530-0068, 2009-0530-0069

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Appleyard et al)

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 Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

January 18, 2012.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Toronto Jail 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.

2A number of Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging that the Collective Agreement was violated when the Employer refused to allow their participation at a conference. It was urged that this refusal constituted a poisoned work environment for the officers whose requests to attend were denied.

3The Organizational Effectiveness Division of the Ministry organized a “Race Matters” conference. In its material that was disseminated it was stated that the conference was “designed to explore the workplace issues of employees who, other than Aboriginal peoples, self-identify by race or colour and includes but is not limited to persons who are Chinese, South Asian, Caribbean, African-Canadian or Black, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Arab, West Asian, Korean, Japanese.”

4The grievors were not members of the above named groups. Some of the grievors were initially accepted but ultimately refused when it was discovered that they were not members of any named groups set out in the criteria. Further, some of the grievors are married to, or otherwise related to, members of visible minority groups.

5It was the position of the grievors that the Employer’s refusal to allow Caucasian employees to participate in this conference was demeaning, discriminatory and created a poisoned work environment. It was urged that the decision to deny the educational experience caused “extreme emotional and professional hardship.” It was further contended that the Toronto Jail was the only institution where Caucasian applicants were denied.

6The Employer argued that it is entitled to hold conferences such as the one at issue for specific groups. The intended purpose was to have “racialized” groups discuss their experiences and share ideas.

7Although I understand the frustration that the Employer’s refusal may have caused the grievors, I cannot uphold these grievances. There is no violation of the Collective Agreement, employment statute or any Ministry policy.

8While it is unfortunate and somewhat ironic that a conference held to deal with “anti-racism/human rights, correctional services and affinity group development” caused these grievors to feel discriminated against, the grievances are dismissed.