GSB#2011-3686

UNION#2012-0517-0007

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gordon-Bartholomew)

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

Antoinette Karner Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Adviser

HEARING

September 11, 2013

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Toronto West Detention Centre agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Some of the grievances were settled through that process. However, this grievance remained unresolved and therefore requires 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.

2Paula Gordon-Bartholomew is a receptionist at the Detention Centre. She filed a grievance that alleged the Employer violated Articles 2, 3, 9 and 21 of the Collective Agreement. The grievance referred to an incident that occurred on December 15, 2011 with her immediate supervisor, George Solijon.

3In brief, the grievor alleged that her manager yelled at her in front of other staff and members of the public. She was of the view that she was treated unprofessionally and improperly. Ms. Bartholomew was also concerned that there was discipline in her file as the result of these circumstances. The Union urged that she was harassed and asked for damages.

4The Employer assured that Board that there has been no discipline imposed and therefore no documents about this incident in the grievor’s file. However, the Employer was of the view that, while this situation certainly may have been handled more professionally by the grievor’s supervisor, there was no harassment and therefore there has been no violation of the Collective Agreement.

5After consideration of all the facts and submissions I am of the view that the grievance must be denied. I accept that the grievor’s file has no mention of this incident and invite the grievor to review her file to assure herself.

6By all accounts, the grievor’s supervisor exercised very poor managerial skills in his handling of the grievor on December 5, 2011. However, given the particular facts of this case, I cannot make a finding of harassment. There was no violation of the Collective Agreement.

7Accordingly, the grievance is denied.