GSB# 2024-01171

UNION# 2024-0234-0116

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Grewal)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Reva Devins

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Anson Cai Ryder Wright Holmes Bryden Nam LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Paul Meier Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel

HEARING

February 25 and June 10, 2025

Decision

1The Grievor is a fixed term Correctional Officer (‘CO’). On her return to work following an extended absence, the Grievor was randomly selected by a ‘randomiser’ to be searched. The Grievor alleges that the CO who performed the search made an offensive comment. She immediately brought her concern to the attention of the Sergeant on shift, and, at their request, she filed an Occurrence Report (‘OR’). She subsequently filed a complaint with the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (‘WDHP’) Office.

2The Grievor was not satisfied with the outcome of the Employer’s preliminary attempts to resolve her internal complaint or the outcome of her WDHP complaint, and she grieved that the Employer failed to respond appropriately to her complaint of discrimination and harassment.

Comment directed at the Grievor by her Co-worker

3The Grievor was the sole witness called by the Union. She testified that at the end of 2023, she took an extended Leave of Absence to be with her mother who needed surgery. On her first or second shift back to work, she was selected by a randomiser to have her bag searched on entry to the secure part of the institution.

4Two COs were on duty performing searches on entry, if required. When the Grievor was selected for a search, CO1¹ said to her “there was a lot of weed on the units and then you went on vacation, let’s see what you got in there.” The Grievor understood this as a suggestion that she was bringing contraband into the jail. She replied, “yeah, I brought back a whole lot”. CO1 searched her bag and the Grievor advised her that she had not been on vacation but had gone back home for her mother’s surgery.

5The Grievor and CO1 knew each other from their initial training. The Grievor described their relationship as professional but that they were not friends. While she agreed on cross-examination that her colleagues joke around at work, she refrains from commenting on objectionable jokes. She also disagreed with the suggestion that CO1 was trying to be humorous. It was certainly not funny to the Grievor, who found the comment very upsetting. The Grievor also denied that CO1 apologised. The Grievor believed that CO1 may have apologised for not knowing that her mother was ill, but she did not apologise for suggesting that the Grievor was the source of contraband.

6The Grievor was deeply insulted, felt humiliated, disrespected and personally attacked by CO1. The Grievor explained that she is one of the few racialized COs at the institution, whereas CO1 is Caucasian, and part of the dominant group. As a brown woman, she finds it much harder to fit in. Her integrity and reputation mean everything to her, and the allegation by CO1 could have ruined her reputation.

Initial Response by Management

7The Grievor immediately advised the Staff Sergeant on duty what had transpired. According to the Grievor, her manager was sympathetic and apologised that she had to go through something like that so early in the morning. She asked the Grievor if she wanted support and offered her a WDHP pamphlet along with information on obtaining therapy services. Her manager also asked the Grievor to submit an OR, which she filed that day. The Grievor continued with her duties for the remainder of her shift.

8In her OR, the Grievor provided the following description of what happened:

As I entered the secured part of the building, I saw CO 1 & CO 2 at the randomizer post. I wished both good morning and asked how they are doing. Then I scanned red on the randomizer and [CO1] stood up and said to me “there was a lot of weed on the units and then you went on vacation for a bit, let see what you got in there”. I then responded by saying “yeah I brought back a whole lot”. Then she checked my bag, and I replied to her “I went back home for my mother’s surgery and not for vacation but thanks for asking how my mother is doing”. I felt very disrespected by the comments made by her and felt insulted in front of another staff member. I felt like she was putting an allegation on me for supplying weed to the inmates in jail. I do work the floors all the time and different units, but no one has the right to disrespect another person in this manner and getting this personal on commenting. Certain people don’t work the floors based on how they are scheduled or based on institutional needs, certainly not working the floors does not give anyone the right to put such allegation on the ones who does work the floors a lot. I understand, everyone jokes around with everyone all the time but never felt this disrespected, attacked personally or humiliated ever before for just saying good morning. I would like this to be addressed asap and wish this will not to be repeated by the same person or any other person in the institution.

9The Deputy Superintendent, Operations met with the Grievor to discuss her complaint. She told him what happened and that she wanted a personal apology. He said that he would meet with the other two COs and get back to her. The Grievor testified that the Deputy Superintendent further commented that there is a high school mentality in the institution, which she felt indicated that he did not take her complaint seriously and wanted to sweep it under the rug.

10The Deputy Superintendent met with the Grievor again and advised her that CO1 had apologised in her OR. The Grievor was not