GSB# 2022-11947; 2023-00421

UNION# 2023-0369-0005; 2023-0369-0023

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Zimmerman)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

Employer

BEFORE

D.J.D. Leighton

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Asma Hatia Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations & Negotiations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

October 21, 2024

Decision

1There are two grievances before me. The parties referred these grievances to mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement. At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that I had the jurisdiction to deal with this matter. They asked that I issue a decision without precedential value, and without written reasons.

2Mr. Brad Zimmerman, a Correctional Officer 2 at Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC), grieved on February 12, 2023, that the Employer breached Articles 2 and 9 of the Collective Agreement and any other applicable law when it denied his claim for expenses incurred after he implemented some of the JOPIS* recommendations that would make his home more secure. JOPIS provided a home security review after an inmate threatened Mr. Zimmerman in the institution.

3The Employer denied the claim and submitted that there is no obligation under the Collective Agreement to pay for security upgrades made to a correctional officer’s home. Further, the JOPIS report listing recommendations for Mr. Zimmerman’s home specifically stated that “Residential security upgrades are the responsibility of each homeowner to implement” as they choose.

4Having carefully considered, the submissions of the parties on the grievance, as well as the jurisprudence of the Board, I hereby deny this grievance.

5Mr. Zimmerman also grieved on April 17, 2023, that by allowing the inmate who threatened him to be housed at CNCC the Employer violated Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Collective Agreement, the MOS dated November 22, 2022, and any and all applicable policies, articles and statutes.

6The Employer submitted that the MOS specifically provides, that the inmate was not to be admitted to CNCC, “except for required court attendances.” There was no dispute that the inmate was at CNCC to facilitate his court appearances. Consequently, having carefully considered, the submissions of the parties, as well as the jurisprudence of the Board, I hereby deny this grievance.

* Justice Officials Protection and Investigations Section, part of the Security Bureau of the OPP