GSB# 2025-00459
UNION# 25-0108-001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Lopez Bermudez)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)
Employer
BEFORE
Brian Sheehan Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Karen Martin Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Branch Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING
October 7, 2025
Decision
1The Employer and the Union at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC) agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say, that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each party provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is without prejudice or precedent.
2This Award addresses the appropriateness of a 3-day suspension issued to Kevin Lopez Bermudez (the “Grievor”) on April 2, 2025.
3The Grievor is employed as a Correctional Officer (CO) at EMDC.
4On October 4, 2024, the Grievor, along with CO Tremblay, entered Cell 2 of Unit 8 to advise the inmates in the cell to come out of the cell as it was time for inmates to be in the dayroom of the Unit.
5One of the inmates in the cell (Inmate B) was lying on his bed covered by a blanket. CO Tremblay, after calling out Inmate B’s name and getting no response, lifted the blanket covering Inmate B. The response of the inmate was, “Don’t fucking touch me.” When the COs explained why they removed the blanket to see if he was alright, Inmate B told them to “fuck off.”
6When the COs advised Inmate B he had to come out of the cell, Inmate B indicated that he was not leaving.
7The Grievor noticed that Inmate B had two mattresses and told him to get up so they could take one of the mattresses out of the cell. Inmate B initially did not comply with the request to get up. The Grievor then ordered him to comply with the direction to hand him the mattress. Inmate B got up but rather than handing the mattress to the CO, he responded, “fucking take it.” The Grievor repeated the order to hand over one of the mattresses.
8The Grievor then went to take one of the mattresses but both mattresses were initially stuck together. After the mattresses came apart, CO Tremblay took one of the mattresses out of the cell. The Grievor, before realizing CO Tremblay had taken one of the mattresses out of the cell, initially took the other mattress towards the cell door. Upon realizing that the other mattress was outside of the cell, the Grievor went to put the mattress he removed back in the cell. As he was leaving the cell, Inmate B threw that mattress at the Grievor, hitting him in the back.
9According to the Grievor, upon him turning around, Inmate B threw a closed fist strike at his head. The Grievor was able to block the punch with his arm.
10The Employer issued a 3-day suspension to the Grievor because the CCTV video of the incident did not support the narrative set out in the Grievor’s Use of Force Occurrence Report (OR). In particular, the Employer asserted that the video demonstrated that the Grievor approached Inmate B, and that Inmate B was initially bent over when the Grievor initially turned around. The discipline was also issued based on an allegation that the Use of Force Occurrence Report and the Addendum Report completed by the Grievor inaccurately described the incident.
11Upon reviewing the video of the incident, it is evident that the Grievor did not simply turn around after being hit by the mattress thrown by Inmate B but took a few steps towards Inmate B. While issue may be taken with the Employer’s conclusion that the Grievor used “excessive” force, considering that Inmate B initiated the physical altercation by striking the Grievor (Inmate B was criminally charged with assault as a result of the incident), the Grievor could have, in my view, easily extricated himself from the situation by leaving the cell. In other words, the use of force may have been ultimately unnecessary, as the Grievor’s action in approaching Inmate B without a justifiable reason can be seen as directly leading to the physical altercation. It is also accepted that the Employer’s finding that the Use of Force Occurrence Report and the Addendum Report completed by the Grievor were inaccurate was correct.
12In light of the above, it has been determined that the 3-day suspension issued to the Grievor was, in the circumstances, appropriate and reasonable.
13Accordingly, the grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 22nd day of October 2025.