GSB# 2025-00975

UNION# 2025-0108-0005

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Manske)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Alex Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Danielle Rose Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations & Negotiations 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.

2Grant Manske (the “Grievor”) is a Correctional Officer 2 at the EMDC and has been employed as a CO with the Employer for over thirty years.

3The Grievor received a three-day suspension for an incident that occurred on March 12, 2024. An inmate (Inmate M) was being admitted into the institution. Along with the Grievor, CO Reeves, CO McCallum, and Staff Sergeant Woods were present in the Admitting and Discharge Unit at the time. CO Reeves began the process of frisking Inmate M in the A & D Sallyport room. After Inmate M removed his shoes, CO Reeves instructed him to place his hands against the wall so he could be frisked. As CO Reeves started to frisk the inmate, he claimed that he felt the inmate push back against him. In response, CO Reeves pushed Inmate M back into the wall, forcibly holding the Inmate’s head against the wall, and told him to follow his instructions and not attempt to push back again.

4After the search was completed, Inmate M stepped towards Staff Sergeant Woods. He was then taken to the ground by CO Reeves, with assistance from CO McCallum. Inmate M was instructed to follow the given directions and to stop resisting the officers.

5It is not disputed that Staff Sergeant Woods, after reviewing the video of the incident, advised CO Reeves and CO McCallum that filing Use of Force Occurrence Reports was not necessary.

6On April 25, 2024, a Deputy Superintendent instructed the Grievor to complete a Use of Force Occurrence Report regarding the March 12, 2024, incident involving Inmate M. The Grievor stated in the completed report and at a May 1, 2024, Allegation Meeting, that he had no recollection of the incident.

7Initially, the allegations against the Grievor included that he willfully participated in a Code of Silence offence by failing to file a Use of Force Occurrence Report. Ultimately, the Employer concluded that the Code of Silence allegation was unsubstantiated.

8The Employer contends that although Staff Sergeant Woods expressly informed COs Reeves and McCallum that filing a Use of Force Occurrence Report was not necessary, all the COs involved, including the Grievor as a witness to the incident, were still obligated to submit such Reports in accordance with Ministry policy.

9The Employer’s view that employees, whether participants or witnesses to an incident involving use of force against an inmate, should be required to file a Use of Force Occurrence Report is entirely understandable. Ensuring that employees are accountable for any use of force against an inmate is important not only in terms of providing for inmate safety but also for enabling the Employer to respond appropriately to any and all allegations of an unnecessary or excessive use of force. That being said, after reviewing the relevant evidence, it has been concluded that the Employer's decision to impose a three-day suspension on the Grievor was, considering the circumstances, not appropriate.

10The most significant issue with the Employer’s decision is that the video of the incident clearly shows the Grievor did not witness CO Reeves push Inmate M against the wall. Specifically, even before CO Reeves began frisking Inmate M, the Grievor had left the A & D Sallyport room and only returned after CO Reeves had stopped pressing Inmate M’s head against the wall. In relation to this point, when Staff Sergeant Woods completed his Use of Force Occurrence Report, after being instructed to do so, he made no mention of the Grievor, with respect to the use of force against Inmate M on March 12, 2024.

11In fairness to the Employer, the video confirms that the Grievor observed Inmate M being taken to the ground by CO Reeves with assistance from CO McCallum. The Grievor also helped physically guide Inmate M from the A & D Sallyport to the Admitting Department, which involved Inmate M being bent over at the waist with CO Reeves holding his shoulders down with CO McCallum and the Grievor each gripping one of his arms.

12It is also noted that the Employer cannot claim that the Grievor deliberately failed to file a Use of Force Occurrence Report, as the initial allegation of the Code of Silence against the Grievor was found to be unsubstantiated.

13Therefore, the Employer’s claim is, at its highest, that the Grievor did not fulfill his obligation to file a Use of Force Occurrence Report regarding Inmate M being taken to the ground and the manner in which he was physically guided into the Admitting Department. Should the Grievor have completed such a report regarding that use of force? Yes. However, since Staff Sergeant Woods did not instruct the Grievor to file a Use of Force Occurrence Report and, more importantly, explicitly told CO Reeves and CO McCallum not to file reports about a much more serious use of force against Inmate M — specifically, CO Reeves forcibly pushing him against the wall — and considering the Grievor’s over thirty years of service, and there being no discipline on his record, in my view, a coaching letter was a more appropriate response rather than formal discipline. Accordingly, the grievance is upheld, and the Grievor is to be made whole with respect to the removal of the discipline.