GSB#2009-0650, 2011-3198, 2011-3985

UNION#2009-0517-0066, 2012-0517-0003, 2012-0517-0013

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Laryea)

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

Nick Mustari Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

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

HEARING

December 3, 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. Most of the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few grievances 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.

2Sandra Laryea is a Correctional Officer who filed three grievances. The first grievance was filed after Ms. Laryea was given a ten-day suspension. Her grievance contended “the punishment is excessive”. By way of remedy she requested to be made whole including compensation for lost overtime opportunities.

3The discipline was imposed as the result of an incident that took place on September 18, 2011. It is not my intention to set out the allegations or the facts in this matter. However, I do note that the Employer provided documentation including photographs. It also should be mentioned that the grievor denied the most of the allegations.

4After consideration, I have been persuaded that the grievor did commit the offense for which she received a ten-day suspension. However, given that the grievor had been discipline free, I feel the discipline is somewhat harsh. I accept that the Employer wanted to send a strong message and that it was particularly concerned that the grievor failed to take any responsibility for her actions. Indeed, she was still denying culpability at the time these grievances were heard and I also found that somewhat troubling.

5Accordingly, I order that a five-day suspension replace the ten-day suspension that was imposed. All records should be changed to comply with this ruling and the grievor is to be compensated for five days lost.

6The second grievance alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and HPRO because the Employer did not provide her with some overtime opportunities during a period for which she was being accommodated due to family status matters. A review of her accommodation plan – signed by both parties – noted “this accommodation will affect your ability to work overtime”.

7While it may be that the grievor could have worked some overtime shifts during the weekends of the period for which she was being accommodated, I am unable to find that the Employer has violated the Collective Agreement or HPRO by failing to assign Ms. Laryea overtime during this period. The grievance is denied.

8The third grievance alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The facts leading to the filing of the grievance surrounded the grievor filing of a WDHP complaint concerning a co-worker.

9After considering the facts of this matter, I am of the view that there was no violation of the Collective Agreement or the Code. However, I understand that the decision of the investigator of the complaint was that both the grievor and her co-worker were to receive individual coaching and then a joint session would be held. The grievor received her coaching but the coworker did not. The Employer is ordered to complete the recommendations so that the grievor’s coworker receive his coaching and that both have a joint session.

10To the extent set out above, the grievances are partially upheld.

11I remain seized.