GSB# 2002-1354; 2002-2476; 2003-4063; 2004-3640; 2006-0144; 2007-2322; 2016-2860
UNION# 2002-0517-0001; 2002-0517-0073; 2003-0368-0034; 2005-0368-0008; 2006-0999-0003; 2007-0369-0083; 2017-0368-0023
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Charles et al)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Bram Herlich
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Peter Dailleboust Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel
HEARING
December 8, 2017
DECISION
1The parties have requested that I assist them in resolving an issue that has arisen in relation to the implementation of my prior award in this matter. They have agreed that this determination ought to be made following the procedural dictates of Article 22.16 of the collective agreement. They made concise submissions on the issue in question before me and asked that I issue a “bottom line” decision.
2There is no dispute that, as a general proposition, an inmate escort requires the assignment of two COs who have completed the relevant training or of three COs who have not. Where there are insufficient COs available to perform a required escort, the employer retains a discretion to make other arrangements, which could include securing the services of police to perform the escort.
3The question is: In circumstances where there is but a single CO available to perform a required escort, is the employer required to so assign that CO along with police (e.g. one CO and one police officer)?
4In my view, the answer to this question is no, the employer is not so required. The posited facts constitute a circumstance where the requisite number of COs is unavailable, thus triggering the employer’s discretion to make alternate arrangements in the assignment of the work. I was not pointed to anything that would require the composition of what (if this were the construction industry) might be described as a “mixed crew” and neither am I prepared to impose such an unusual requirement solely by inference.
5I trust this resolves the parties’ issue.
Issued in Toronto this 13th day of December, 2017.