GSB#2016-1733

UNION#2016-0411-0023

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (McCafferty)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Ann Fowler Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

June 6, 2017

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say, that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each party provides the Vice-Chair with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is without prejudice or precedent.

2The grievor is employed as a Maintenance Foreman at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre (OCDC).

3The grievor alleges that on May 11, 2016, the windshield of his personal vehicle that was parked in the parking lot at the OCDC was damaged as a result of it being hit by a stone, which was discharged from a lawnmower being operated by a grounds worker. It is further alleged that the employee had removed a guard from the lawnmower; resulting in cars in the parking lot being sprayed with debris.

4The grievor brought the damage to his vehicle to the attention of the Employer that day.

5The Employer disputes that the damage to the grievor’s vehicle was necessarily caused by discharge from the lawnmower operated by the employee in question. The Employer also asserts that the grievance is not arbitrable as the facts, as alleged, do not give rise to a violation of the collective agreement.

6The Union relied on Article 9.1, which provides that the Employer is obligated to make reasonable provisions for the safety and health of its employees during their hours of employment, as the basis for a finding that there has been a violation of the collective agreement.

7An arbitrator’s jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating disputes between the parties that are associated with an alleged violation of the collective agreement. An arbitrator does not have all-encompassing jurisdiction over all matters that may arise at a workplace; more specifically, the nature of the dispute must arise, expressly or inferentially, from the ambit of the provisions of the collective agreement; such that, the essential character of the dispute must relate to the administration, application or interpretation of the collective agreement.

8The facts as alleged by the grievor in this matter, even if accepted, do not, in my view, form a sufficient basis to establish the requisite nexus to the collective agreement. In this regard, in terms of the purported connection to Article 9.1 (Health and Safety) of the collective agreement, it is noted that this claim solely relates to the personal property of the grievor and not to his health or well-being. Moreover, the focus of the grievance is not based upon a failing on the part of the Employer to adopt or adhere to particular safety policies or practices; but rather, relates to the negligent operation of a lawnmower that purportedly caused the damage to the grievor’s vehicle.

9In conclusion, as suggested, the essential character of the dispute relates to a claim of negligence with respect to the personal property of the grievor and there is not a sufficient factual basis to suggest that the dispute arises from the ambit of the provisions of the collective agreement.

10In light of the above, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.