GSB#2016-1474

UNION# 2016-0369-0034

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Black)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity Briggs

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

David Marincola Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING DATE

January 24, 2018

DECISION

1The Employer and the Union at the Central North 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.

2Darryll Black is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievance that alleged “that the Employer has violated Articles 2, 21 and any applicable laws, act, statutes or legislation by excessively suspending me, and failing to show evidence during the investigation. By way of remedy the grievor requested to be made whole and have his file cleared of any reference to his three-day suspension.

3The grievor was disciplined as the result of facts surrounding use of his “personal electronic device” (cell phone) in the secure part of the institution. There was video in this regard shown to the Board that the grievor had not seen prior to the med/arb session.

4There was a dispute between the parties regarding whether the Union was provided with notice of this video in accordance with the provisions of the Collective Agreement. The Union urged the Board to disallow the video evidence as a result.

5While I understand the Union’s frustration regarding the video evidence and how it thought the matter came to the attention of the Employer in the first instance I will admit and consider it. The Employer’s investigation report stated that “information came to the attention of Senior Administration that it was possible that a Correctional Officer on Unit 5 was showing a cell phone to an inmate.” Simply put, the Union fell short of convincing me that the evidence was obtained and utilized contrary to the provisions of the Collective Agreement.

6The grievor was suspended as the result of three allegations. One was that the grievor allowed an inmate to look at information on his cell phone. In my view, the video did not clearly show such an infraction.

7After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties I order that the suspension be reduced to two days. The letter of discipline should be amended to comply with this order and the grievor is to be compensated for one day of losses.

8I remain seized.