GSB#2014-0191, 2014-0192

UNION#2014-0582-0020, 2014-0582-0021

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

(Dawkins)

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

Buky Adeoye

Ministry of Government Services

Centre for Employee Relations

Employee Relations Officer

HEARING

June 19, 2014

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Toronto East Detention Centre agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Most of the outstanding 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.

2Mr. Ian Dawkins has been a Correctional Officer since 1993. He filed two grievances on March 13, 2014. The first alleges a breach of a Memorandum of Agreement that was signed by the parties on December 10, 2008. Included in that settlement was a provision that the Employer was to “advise Mr. Dawkins of the Deputy Superintendent positions that become available at the TEDC until June 10, 2011.” According to that agreement, any application from the grievor for that position was to be given appropriate consideration. In his March 13, 2014 grievance Mr. Dawkins claims the Employer did not comply with this provision and that there were a number of positions of which he was not informed. When asked for documentation in this regard, the grievor replied that he had brought none to the med/arb session but there were emails he sent and/or received. As a result he was given a further twenty-four hours to provide information. None was provided.

3Not surprisingly it was the Employer’s position that this grievor is considerably out of time in the filing of this grievance. It was filed almost three years after the obligation to inform the grievor of certain positions expired. I agree and must dismiss the grievance on that basis.

4The second grievance was regarding a three-day suspension imposed as the result of an incident on January 16, 2014. Three allegations were set out as the cause for the three-day suspension.

5I heard that facts and submissions of both parties and viewed video evidence of the incident. The evidence I saw and heard substantiated the three allegations.

6The grievance on its face references a violation of Article 3 – No Discrimination - of the Collective Agreement. However, when asked, the grievor said that he did not believe that the Employer discriminated against him in the imposition of this discipline. He felt that the Employer’s action was arbitrary and without merit but not discriminatory.

7I agree with the Employer that there was just cause for some level of discipline. It was undisputed that Mr. Dawkins has been discipline free to this point. I have taken this fact and the grievor’s continued lack of accepting responsibility for this incident into account. For these reasons I am prepared to reduce somewhat the level of discipline.

8Accordingly, the suspension is to be reduced to a two-day suspension. The letter of discipline shall be altered to comply with this ruling and the grievor is to be compensated for eight hours.

9I remain seized.