GSB#2012-3263, 2012-3264, 2012-3378

UNION#2012-0128-0015, 2012-0128-0016, 2012-0128-0017

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Perrin et al)

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

Michelle LaButte Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING CONFERENCE CALL

October 6, 2014 October 14, 2014

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Sarnia Jail agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Some 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.

2There were three separate grievances filed which all alleged a poisoned work environment and violations of the WDHP. These grievances were filed following an incident at the jail and the litigation flowing from that incident. The litigation is not yet complete and by all accounts when a result is issued, further discord might occur.

3There is no question that the grievors all felt themselves victims and want an end to their situation in the workplace. By way of redress compensation and an accounting from the Employer was requested.

4The Employer’s position was that the disharmony in the workplace between these grievors benefits no one and should be resolved.

5In my view, the only resolution that will truly benefit the three grievors on an ongoing basis is workplace mediation. All grievors are relatively young and hope to continue employment in this jail which is not of a size where they can hope to avoid each other. Accordingly, they should be given the opportunity and the process to mediate their differences. Both the individuals and the workplace itself will be best served by such an effort.

6Therefore I order the Employer to retain the services of a mediator not employed by the OPS. It is understood that this mediation is not punitive but not optional. This should be scheduled as soon as is practicable.

7I remain seized.