GSB#2015-1461, 2015-1462, 2015-1463, 2015-1464, 2015-1465, 2015-1466, 2015-1467,

2015-1468

UNION#2015-0229-0004, 2015-0229-0005, 2015-0229-0006, 2015-0229-0007,

2015-0229-0008, 2015-0229-0009, 2015-0229-0010, 2015-0229-0011

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Barnes 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

John Wardell Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Laura McCready 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.

3These individual grievances are all identical. OCI 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. The Grievors were the team assigned to Unit 3. In May 2014, the Employer temporarily “closed” Unit 3 for a period of time. More particularly, the residents and staff of Unit 3 were dispersed to other units while the residents and staff of Unit 4 were moved to the Unit 3 location to permit painting and maintenance of the Unit 4 location. In May 2015, the Employer temporarily closed Unit 3 again in the same way, this time to permit the movement of the residents and staff of Unit 2 while painting and maintenance of the Unit 2 location. The grievances before me followed.

4The grievances allege discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, discrimination on the basis of union membership or activity and bullying and harassment. The grievous assert that there is a high concentration of Union officers or activists amongst the COs in Unit 3, that some of them are racialized and that they have been the subject of ridicule by other COs as a result of being moved twice. As proof of the Employer’s actions constituting discrimination and being the source of ridicule by other COs, they assert that as a matter of logic, Unit 4 should have been “closed” in May 2014 (i.e. the staff and residents of Unit 4 should have been dispersed to other units, rather than moving them to Unit 3 and dispersing the staff and residents of Unit 3), and Unit 2 should have been closed in May 2015.

5The Grievor’s case is entirely circumstantial. In order for them to succeed I must be satisfied that the inference which they ask me to draw is more likely than not on all of the evidence before me. I am not able to reach that conclusion. Accordingly, there has been no breach of the collective agreement.

6The grievances are denied.