Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Bedoya) v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2016 OGSB minicounsel 147

GSB#2016-0060

UNION#2016-5112-0031

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Bedoya)

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

Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

James Cheng Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

December 7, 2016

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. 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.

2Ms. Myriam Bedoya is a Housekeeper at Toronto South Detention Centre. On March 3, 2016 she received a three-day suspension for subjecting a colleague to harassment. Four months earlier she had received a Letter of Reprimand for inappropriate behavior including engaging in “a course of vexatious comments and/or conduct against other employees that ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome”. No grievance was filed regarding the Letter of Reprimand.

3Ms. Bedoya filed a grievance asserting that the three-day suspension was discipline without just cause and requested “all discipline be removed from my file and harassment against me and my good name to cease and desist”.

4It is not necessary to go into detail regarding the facts of this matter. It is sufficient to say that the Board reviewed WDHP documents – including the report – as well as numerous Occurrence Reports written by various employees.

5After considering the facts and submissions of the parties I am of the view that the Employer was justified in meting out discipline to the grievor. However, in my view the three-day suspension was too severe. Accordingly, I order the Employer to adjust the records to show that the grievor was suspended for one day. Further, the grievor is to be compensated for two days.

6Accordingly, the grievance is upheld, in part.

7I remain seized.