GSB#2014-3226

UNION#2014-5112-0154

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Jalea)

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

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

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

HEARING

March 5, 2015

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Toronto South 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, this grievance remained unresolved requiring 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. Raymond Jalea filed a grievance after an incident with his supervisor involving an assignment of certain work. The grievor was of the view that the work he was being asked to do was contrary to usual practice and policy. He thought he was being “provoked” by his supervisor when he was told that he was being “directed” to do the work and further he felt threatened when the supervisor told him to “watch” him.

3The grievor was not disciplined as a result of this incident but he felt strongly that usual practice and policies should be followed in the assignment of work and that the supervisor should not have threatened him. One of his remedial requests was that it become known within the institution that he was not disciplined as the result of this matter. He worried that his “good and clean” reputation of thirty-three years had been “discredited.”

4There has been no violation of the Collective Agreement. The grievor did not receive any discipline and it would be an understatement to say that there is nothing improper for a supervisor to make clear that an order is being given when an employee is asked to carry out an assignment of work. Further, I am not convinced that being told to “watch” for his supervisor was intended to be threatening.

5Accordingly, the grievance is denied.