GSB#2011-1272

UNION#2010-0108-0013

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Coull)

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

September 30, 2015

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. A number 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.

2James Coull is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievance regarding the Employer’s implantation of the Attendance Support Management Program. He asserted that in February of 2010 a co-worker attended at the workplace ill and contagious with flu like symptoms. The grievor said that he asked his coworker why he did not simply stay home given his illness and was told that he was afraid of being absent due to the attendance program. According to the grievor, a few days later he became ill with similar symptoms.

3By way of remedy the grievor asked that the Board order he be removed from the program and “to have the employer send people who are ill home to protect the other employees, specifically my health and safety.”

4There was no medical evidence provided of any sort that might verify the grievor’s illness being the result of having worked with an ill co-worker.

5While I understand the grievor’s concerns, I am of the view that there is no violation of the Collective Agreement.