GSB#2016-1246

UNION#2016-0229-0013

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Stickle et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Ian Anderson

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

David Marincola Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

May 25, 2017

Decision

1The Employer and the Union agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated protocol. The majority of the grievances are normally settled pursuant to that process. However, if a grievance remains unresolved the protocol provides that the Vice Chair of the Board, based on the evidence provided during the mediation session, will immediately decide the grievance. The decision will be with no or minimal reasons, be without precedent and prejudice and will be issued within fifteen working days of the mediation unless the parties agree otherwise.

2On May 25, 2017 the parties at the Ontario Correctional Institute (“OCI”) agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

3OCI consists of a number of treatment units which house “residents”. A unit typically has a group of Correctional Officers (“COs”) regularly assigned to work in it. This grievance relates to meetings two Operational Managers of the Employer held with each Correctional Officer working on Unit 6. According to the email sent to each CO directing them to attend the meeting, the stated purpose of the meeting was: “to review expectations regarding work procedures. This meeting will also be used as an opportune to discuss any issues or concerns that you may have as a Case Manager working on Unit 6.” The Union asserts that the meetings were held to investigate matters which may result in disciplinary action and that the members were denied their choice of union representation contrary to the collective agreement. The Employer denies the meetings were held for that purpose.

4The meetings in question took place within the context of a number of complaints by Unit 6 COs against other Unit 6 COs. I understand that several of these complaints became grievances which have been referred to arbitration under the regular procedure. Accordingly, and notwithstanding that this decision is without prejudice or precedent, I do not consider it advisable to provide any reasons for my decision. Having carefully considered the representations of the parties, the grievance is denied.