GSB#2005-1505, 2005-1506, 2005-3595

UNION#2005-0108-0031, 2005-0108-0032, 2005-0108-0067

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Cote)

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

Greg Gledhill Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

October 7, 2014

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre 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. Ellen Cote has been a CO2 since 1991. In 2005 she worked a shift in A & D with a Correctional Officer who was being accommodated. During that shift, she raised concerns with her manager about her coworker including her views about the capacity of that CO. Some of her basis of concern was as the result of speaking with other coworkers about the accommodated CO. She stated that she felt unsafe working with the accommodated CO due to her underlying condition. She later filed incident reports regarding specific inmates.

3The accommodated CO eventually learned of the grievor’s accusations and confronted her with anger.

4The grievor was later asked to file an occurrence report regarding the entire matter and a meeting was held with the grievor to discuss her report and her allegation regarding the accommodated CO. During that meeting the grievor became distraught and was absent from the workplace for some time due to the stress of the situation.

5Ms. Cote filed three grievances alleging that her health and safety was put at risk as the result of having to work with another CO who was being accommodated. By way of remedy, amongst other things, she requested:

• The safety and security breach of any one person and the institution never happens again due to known hazard factors;

• Time off not counted as sick time (not put in the loop);

• Pay for period is “topped up” to full pay for 40 hours per week;

• Paid 50% of all overtime incurred in the building during time off;

• All expenses for treatments incurred and for the next years, that is not covered by the employee benefit plan, is paid by the employer;

• Full employee health benefits be paid by Employer until my death;

• Written apology from the Employer;

• Be given missed training;

• $500,000. For pain and suffering;

• Ms. X (the accommodated CO) and I be treated with dignity and respect;

• Training for Managers who deal with and deploy accommodations.

6In my view, there has been no violation of the health and safety provisions – or any other provisions – of the Collective Agreement and therefore the grievance is denied. There was no evidence of any risk to the grievor or the inmates during the shift in question - or at any other time - as the result of this accommodated CO working in the institution.