GSB# 2018-1553

UNION# 2018-0368-0182

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (McLaughlin)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Gail Misra

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Samantha Gray Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

February 25, 2019

DECISION

1The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional Centre agreed to participate in mediation-arbitration in accordance with the Local Mediation-Arbitration Protocol that has been negotiated by the parties. Should mediation not result in resolution of a grievance, pursuant to the Protocol, they have agreed to a mediation-arbitration process by which each party provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out their respective facts and the authorities they may be relying upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, so that it is without precedent or prejudice to any other matters between the parties, and is issued without written reasons.

2David McLaughlin is an electrician at the Central East Correctional Centre (“CECC”) in Lindsay, Ontario. His grievance, dated June 22, 2018, states that an electrician can operate and test a fire pump, but that this work is only being assigned to plumbers and mechanics when there is a need for a call in. In particular, the grievor states that on June 11 and June 21, 2018 an electrician should have been called in to shut off a fire pump, and that he was available for that call in work. He is seeking payment for a four-hour call in for the two dates.

3There is a sprinkler head in each cell in the CECC. If an inmate tampers with a sprinkler head in a cell, an alarm goes off at Central Control, and someone from the Maintenance department has to turn off and re-set the fire suppression system.

4At the time period in question, the Employer had an established “Maintenance Call-in Procedure” which outlined for various issues which of the maintenance staff may be called in for work after hours. Staff are called in on a rotating basis in order to ensure that all assigned staff receive equal opportunities for call ins.

5The Employer also had a “Critical Alarms – 123 Depicts Order of Call-In” sheet that outlined for each type of alarm, who of the maintenance staff would be the first called, second called, and third called. As an example, for a boiler alarm, plumbers would be the first called in, mechanics would be the second called in, and electricians would be the third called in. Thus, depending on the area of expertise, one or another of the maintenance staff may be the first on the list, followed by others who may have expertise in that area. At the time, electricians were not listed as part of the Order of Call-In for the fire pumps. The order was that plumbers were called in first, followed by mechanics. As such, following the established protocol and practice at the institution, no electrician was called in on the two dates in question.

6I am advised that since the filing of the grievance, the parties have agreed to add electricians to the order of call-in for the fire pumps.

7Having considered carefully the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the Employer acted in accordance with the Maintenance Call-in Procedure and the order of call-ins in place at the time, and as such, I hereby deny the grievance.