```md
GSB#2017-1541
UNION#2017-0708-0015
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Before
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Jurcic)
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Felicity D. Briggs
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Caroline Markiewicz
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING
November 15, 2017
## Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Thunder Bay Correctional 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.
[2] Mr. Max Jurcic is a Correctional Officer at the Correctional Centre. Notwithstanding the policy that cell phones should be left either in one’s vehicle or locker, Mr. Jurcic took a cell phone into the workplace one evening and checked for messages. This fact was discovered by the Employer while reviewing video surveillance regarding another matter. For this violation of policy Mr. Jurcic received a two-day suspension.
[3] The Union urged that there were extenuating circumstances in this case. On the evening that the grievor took his phone into the workplace, his daughter was in hospital. He was anticipating news from his spouse in this regard. It was conceded that some level of discipline was warranted but suggested that given the fact that the grievor was without discipline of any sort on his file, the discipline should be reduced.
[4] The Employer noted that the period of time that the grievor was looking at his phone was approximately a minute and given that his assignment that evening was a constant watch of an inmate, a two-day suspension is warranted.
[5] After considering the facts and submissions of the parties, I am of the view that there is just cause for discipline. However, given all of the evidence presented a one-day suspension is the appropriate quantum.
[6] Accordingly, the record should be altered to show a one-day suspension and the grievor is to be compensated for one day lost wages. I remain seized.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24<sup>th</sup> day of November 2017.
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel