GSB#2016-1476; 2016-1983

UNION# 2016-0369-0036; 2016-0369-0049

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Benner)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity Briggs

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Sia Romanidis 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.

2Judson Benner is a Correctional Officer who filed two grievances. The first was a grievance regarding a seven-day suspension. His letter of discipline stated that he “used profanity toward and intentionally intimidated [an inmate] on Unit 2 in order to gain compliance.” It was contended that his actions were unprofessional and inappropriate.

3It is not necessary to go into the facts of this matter. However, it is necessary to note that the grievor had earlier discipline on his file for what the Employer categorized as similar behavior.

4I agree with the Employer that the behavior that brought about this seven-day suspension is of a similar nature. However, in my view the discipline imposed was too severe. I order that the letter be reissued to the grievor imposing a five-day suspension. Further, Mr. Brenner is to be compensated for two days.

5The second grievance alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by denying him “an Expression of Interest developmental line on Unit 2 when there was still [an] opening available. After hearing the facts and submissions of the parties I am of the view that the Employer did not comply with the terms and provisions of the agreement regarding posting of positions. No remedy is ordered other than this declaration.

6I remain seized.