GSB#2011-0317

UNION#2011-0530-0012

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pouli)

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

Laura Josephson Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Victoria Fichtenbaum Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

January 19, 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.

2Ms. Camille Pouli is a Correctional Officer at the Toronto Jail. In February of 2011, a friend told her that there had been graffiti written about her on a wall on 1B. According to the grievor, and this was not disputed by the Employer, the graffiti was written on a wall that is visible to inmates, staff and others. The graffiti was hurtful to her and she asked for it to be removed. She became very upset by this incident and left the workplace due to stress. She did not return to work for approximately two and a half months. She alleged that the Employer should have protected her from this incident. Further, it was asserted that the Employer made inappropriate comments that caused WSIB, for which she applied, to be denied. She was particularly concerned that it was implied in the WSIB denial that she was being somewhat opportunistic. By way of remedy the grievor wanted to be paid for her absence from the workplace, an immediate transfer to the Toronto West Detention Centre and removal of certain notations made in various files.

3The Employer stated in the Appendix C that the graffiti was removed as soon as it was made aware. The Union did not dispute this comment. Further, there was an assurance that, contrary to the grievor’s view, there is no recording of a period of absence without leave in any of the grievor’s files. The Employer took the position that while the situation was unfortunate, there has been no violation of the Collective Agreement.

4After considering the facts and submissions made regarding this matter, I must agree with the Employer. While I have sympathy for the grievor and do not doubt that this caused her distress, I can find no violation of the Collective Agreement and therefore the grievance is denied.