GSB#2004-0343

UNION#2004-0234-0118

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Jackson)

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

January 14, 2015

Decision

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

2Mr. Jack Jackson is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievances asserting that his health and safety rights are violated because of the many accommodations that are allowed in the workplace. He expressed concern that there have been instances when other Correctional Officers who are less than fully able bodied cannot fulfill all of the duties and responsibilities thereby leaving the workplace less than safe.

3The grievor provided a communication that he submitted to the Employer approximately a year prior to the filing of his grievance which makes clear his view. It said, in part:

I wish to officially complain about the employer’s “Employee Accommodation Program”. I wish to complain on the basis that the program is promoting a poisoned work environment.

This program promotes a poisoned work environment by pitting employee against employee. Those employees with no inmate contact accommodations are bumping regular employees out of their positions, thus forcing the regular employee to do the work for the accommodated employee. The accommodated employee does less so the regular employee has to do more. If there is no position for the accommodated employee to take over, that person sits around doing nothing. Because both employees earn the same wages a resentful and despising attitude begins to fester towards both the accommodated employee and the employer. This ultimately leads to poor morale.

4The grievance is dismissed. The Employer is obligated to accommodate disabled employees to the point of undue hardship. Of course, it goes without saying that the Union and the disabled employee have obligations in this regard as well.

5No evidence was put before this Board that revealed an unsafe work environment. Indeed, the grievance was presented – in large measure – as a matter of principle not as the result of any particular situation.

6The grievance is denied.