GSB#2013-2218, 2013-2219

UNION#2013-0234-0319, 2013-0234-0320

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Haring)

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

Jackie Crawford Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

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

HEARING

March 10, 2014

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Many 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.

2Ms. Debbie Haring filed two grievances. The first alleges that the Collective Agreement was breached because a supervisor performed bargaining unit work when she wrote a particular report. According to the grievor, this was compounded by incorrect statements made in the report. By way of remedy the grievor wanted the “false statement” to be retracked and “four training days to be used at my discretion”.

3The second grievance filed a few days later alleges a breach of article 2. As I understand the fact surround this second grievance, the grievor received an email reminding her that she had not signed in for a particular shift despite an earlier reminder to all staff about signing in for work. The grievor claims that this email was discipline and harassment and constituted anti-union animus as the result of her filing her first grievance.

4The Union reviewed the facts concerning these grievances and, simply put, there is no violation of the Collective Agreement. However, to be clear, even if there was a violation of the first grievance, I would not have the jurisdiction to award the requested remedy.

5Regarding the second grievance, the email sent to the grievor is not discipline and there is no evidence that it was sent for any other reason than its stated intention to remind her to sign in for work.

6Accordingly the grievances are denied.