The Toronto Sun - February 26, 2010

Teen inmates assaulting them, officers say
Violent offenders include murderers, rapists at Brampton centre
By TOM GODFREY, Toronto Sun
Twenty officers have been assaulted at Roy McMurtry Youth Centre in Brampton, workers say. (MARK O'NEILL PHOTO) More than 20 officers have been assaulted and 10 others are off the job on stress leave due to violent clashes with teens at a Brampton youth centre whose inmates include at least six convicted of first-degree murder. Youth services officers at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre on McLaughlin Rd. say they’re breaking up at least one fight daily by some of the toughest teens in the province at the centre that has only been open eight months. Besides the six murderers the inmates include more than a dozen rapists and arsonists, centre workers said, adding that at one time youths charged with slaying Jane Creba were held there. The workers, who can’t be identified because they could be fired, said in the last week three officers have been assaulted, including a female who was punched in the face by an inmate. She suffered a black eye and required medical care, workers said. Also assaulted last week was a deputy superintendent who was smacked several times by inmates. He suffered minor injuries. Sources said since it opened the facility has issued more than 225 “blue code” alerts of non-violent crimes and 10 “green codes”, the highest jail warning for violent crimes. MPP Laurel Broten, the minister of Children and Youth Services, confirmed there have been a number of incidents at the centre, which opened last July. “There are some growing pains and we have some issues to work on,” Broten told the Toronto Sun. “We have undertaken some reviews and are working with all the parties involved.” Experts on crime and gang activity regularly speak to staff and inmates, she said. Police and jail workers said the centre is plagued by gangs who bully and have initiation sessions with younger offenders, some of whom are sodomized. Officers said a major concern stems from hard-core offenders who turn adult while serving their sentences and prey on younger inmates. Warren Smokey Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Union, said he’s receiving a steady stream of complaints from his members about the centre. “There has been way too many assaults at that facility,” said Thomas, whose union represents 300 of the workers. “There are safety concerns for our staff and inmates.” The 192-bed secure facility, which features large-screen TVs in rooms and the latest computer games, has a school and religious centre. Greg McVeigh, an OPSEU representative for the centre, said there have been a number of officers who suffered minor injuries after being attacked for breaking up cellblock scraps. “Our incident rate is way higher than any other institution in the province,” McVeigh said on Friday. “The incidents have gone up dramatically this year.”

The Ottawa Citizen - February 28, 2010

Gay Ottawa jail guard faced ‘poisonous’ workplace Grievance board upholds complaint against corrections ministry
By Tony Spears, The Ottawa Citizen
OTTAWA — Homophobic slurs, crude e-mails and constant invective created a “poisonous” working atmosphere for a gay guard at an Ottawa jail, Ontario’s Grievance Settlement Board has found. The Jan. 18 decision upheld a complaint filed against the corrections ministry that it allowed harassment against Robert Ranger to continue unchecked for four years, leaving him suicidal and diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union lawyer who represented Ranger says the decision appears to be the first case of its kind to hinge on discrimination based on sexual orientation. “You really wouldn’t expect this sort of conduct from a modern public sector employer,” Don Eady said. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services spokesman Stuart McGetrick said the ministry has dedicated $8 million over two years to reduce sexism and racism among corrections staff. The ministry is also attempting to hire a more diverse staff to better reflect the demographic of offenders and the Canadian population, he said But McGetrick couldn’t say what reforms might be put in place in light of the grievance board’s findings. “We’re going to review the decision and we’re going to work with the union to address the issues,” he said. “It’s been recognized that corrections was not as diverse in terms of the work force as it could be.” Ranger worked at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre from Nov. 16, 1998, to Feb. 11, 2002. He had transferred to OCDC from L’Orignal Jail following a settlement of grievances he had filed there. (The board did not examine those grievances, because the corrections ministry had admitted to no wrongdoing in the settlement.) Board vice-chair Deborah Leighton ruled Ranger had been harassed because he was gay, that the ministry “fail(ed) to promptly investigate” his complaints, and that the ministry took too long to offer Ranger alternative and equivalent employment. Eady noted it took 18 months for prison officials to begin investigating Ranger’s complaints, while Leighton said a temporary position finally offered to Ranger in January 2005 violated the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The 72-page decision identified guard Mark Grady — then president of the correctional services OPSEU Local 411 — as Ranger’s principal tormentor. The report said Grady repeatedly and loudly used profanities and made vulgar gestures. Others were also involved. Grady did not respond to repeated attempts to reach him. However, he refused comment through a third party. When Ranger was escorting prisoners, co-worker Eleanor Hodges testified guards would make comments about his orientation behind his back. She also said a small group of guards openly disparaged homosexuals. The ruling said Ranger was also deluged with “graphically offensive” and “taunting” e-mails. Ranger testified he told two superiors about them, but nothing was done. The so-called Classroom Incident was Ranger’s “last straw.” On Feb. 11, 2002, the report described a rowdy training session in which Grady repeatedly mocked Ranger in front of his colleagues, with one person laughing “so hard he almost choked.” Ranger complained to the session leader who he said had done nothing to control the group, the report said. Ranger walked off the job and never returned. Grady was not called by either counsel. The supervisor told Superintendent Michael Côté — who oversaw the jail — what had happened, but that all had been resolved. Côté testified that an angry Grady then came to his office, telling him that Ranger was going to “milk the situation as he had done in the past at L’Orignal” and that “that faggot better be very careful.” Côté testified he later met Ranger at a coffee shop and asked him to put his complaints in writing. In response. Côté said that Ranger said, “You know you don’t run the institution; Mr. Grady does.” Côté conceded to the hearing that this was somewhat accurate. The abuse affected Ranger’s health, the board heard. His doctor testified Ranger became suicidal in 2002 and referred him to a psychiatrist who provided expert testimony at the hearing that Ranger suffered from major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder as a direct result of workplace harassment. An independent psychiatric exam didn’t confirm or rule out the PTSD diagnosis. However, Dr. Adekunie Ahmed — appointed at the request of the board and with the consent of Ranger and the union — submitted a written report that said Ranger “continues to experience anxiety symptoms when merely thinking about going to work.” Ahmed recommended against him returning to work in any correctional facility. Ranger is still an employee of the Ontario government. He remains on long-term disability. Grady served as head of the union local from May 11, 2000, until June 18, 2002, then served as vice-president from 2004 to 2006 before he was promoted to management. He is now the OCDC’s deputy superintendent of operations. In April 2009, Grady was named assistant coach of the Ottawa 67’s. “I find him to be a great character, a great role model for our players and somebody I have the utmost faith and confidence in,” 67’s owner Jeff Hunt said. Grady did not return phone calls and Hunt — who had discussed the matter with Grady on Thursday — said Grady would not comment. Though Leighton upheld the grievances, it remains the task of the union and ministry to hammer out an acceptable resolution. Eady will be seeking compensation and another job for Ranger as well as “systemic reform” to ensure something like this won’t happen again. The two parties are to meet independently, but if they reach an impasse “then obviously we would be seeking to go back in front of the vice-chair,” Eady said. No meetings have yet been scheduled. McGetrick would not comment on potential disciplinary action against Grady. Eady said it is within the board’s authority to order Grady’s dismissal, but added he could not recall any instance in which the board has done so. He couldn’t say if this would be part of the union’s demands, nor could he say what sort of compensation Ranger would seek. tbspears@thecitizen.canwest.com

Catherine Swift or Not So Swift?????? Shame

Catherine Swift Has A Message For All Of Us Who Work In The Public Service

"News ReleasesCommentariesIn the news 20102009 “Hands off our tax dollars”, CFIB tells Public Unions
February 5, 2010
Appearing on Global’s Focus Ontario (Feb. 6, 2010) CFIB President Catherine Swift is interviewed along with the President of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) and others regarding the next Ontario Budget. Watch as CFIB leads the charge on behalf of all taxpayers in telling OPSEU to keep its hands off our tax dollars, which are currently used to fund their overly-generous wages, pensions, early retirements and other benefits. "

This is what Catherine Swift is saying about us! Shame. I think its time to call Mrs. Swift and tell her how we really feel about her. We are encouraging everyone to call and/or email her. Let her know about our website. Email her responses to us and we will post them on our website for everyone to see.

TORONTO
401-4141 YONGE ST
TORONTO, ON, M2P2A6
Telephone: 416-222-8022
Fax: 416-222-4337
email: msont@cfib.ca

Warren "Smokey" Thomas - February 22/10

Retirement security is for everyone
Dear sisters and brothers:
Some phone calls you just don’t want to take.
Recently, Stockwell Day called up unions representing workers in the federal public service. He said he wanted to meet. Recently named as President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Day is basically the new Minister of Cutbacks for the federal government. He called the unions to talk about their pensions. Like their Queen’s Park cousins, the federal Tories led by Stephen Harper have never liked the public sector. To them, the federal deficit is a perfect excuse to slash jobs, wages, and pensions. So while this year’s budget, due March 4, will continue stimulus spending, next year’s will be all about deficit-cutting. Which means we are at the start of a 12-month right-wing campaign against public sector pensions and salaries. The attacks won’t be confined to the federal level. On Feb. 6, I was on Global-TV’s Focus Ontario to talk about the upcoming provincial budget. Also on the program was Catherine Swift, head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Swift was rude, obnoxious, and vicious. And she clearly has it in for public employees. She notes, correctly, that public sector pensions are higher on average than they are in the private sector. Her conclusion is that, to be fair to the private sector, our pensions should be cut. I have a few things to say about this.
First, public employees worked hard for decades to build the strong pension plans we have today. They aren’t “subsidized,” as Swift says. They are built with our wages – wages we opted to set aside for the future instead of spending today. And because unions have a say in the way the big plans are managed, they are very well run, unlike many company plans. (We still have more to do for our members who don’t have a pension. That’s why we’ve created The OPSEU Pension Plan System.)
Second, Catherine Swift and her ilk don’t speak for private sector workers. Private sector unions across Canada are saying, with one voice, that they oppose knocking down the pension incomes of public employees. Instead, they want their members’ retirement income brought up. Unions from both sides, public and private, are supporting the Canadian Labour Congress’s plan to make sure all Canadians can look forward to a retirement without poverty.
Over the next year you will see a lot of pension stories in the media. Catherine Swift and her cronies will attack your right to retire. Your friends and neighbours will read these stories. Maybe your relatives will repeat the right-wingers’ arguments at the dinner table.
You will be tempted to say, “Hands off our pensions.” I understand that, but at a time when so many retired workers live in poverty, it’s not enough. Our pension goal is bigger than us. It’s very simple, and so is our message: Retirement security is for everyone.
Tell everybody you know. In solidarity, Warren (Smokey) Thomas, President

The Windsor Star - February 22, 2010

Windsor man arrested by Amherstburg police for allegedly harassing corrections officer
By Trevor Wilhelm

Adam Peltier leaves the courthourse after a jury found him "not guilty" of murder and attempted murder.Photograph by: Jason Kryk/File photo, The Windsor StarWINDSOR, Ont. — A man who once taunted Windsor police after a jury found him not guilty of murder was back in jail over the weekend for allegedly harassing a corrections officer. The officer was on his way home from work about 6:45 a.m. Saturday when he realized he was being followed by a silver Dodge Charger. The Charger followed him all the way to Amherstburg, making several turns to keep up, said police. The corrections officer called Amherstburg police and drove into a Tim Hortons parking lot. After pulling into the lot, the officer got a look at the driver of the Charger and realized he knew the man. It was Adam Peltier, police said. Amherstburg police stopped Peltier, 26, and charged him with criminal harassment. A bail hearing was scheduled for today. Peltier walked out of a courtroom a free man in June 2008 after his second trial for attempted murder and second-degree murder. He had been charged with the attempted murder of Michael Kane, 38, and second-degree murder for the shooting death of Jason Joyce, 29. Peltier had already endured a trial for the events of April 25, 2005, during which time court heard he was dealing drugs. There was a hung jury for the second-degree murder charge. He was found guilty of attempted murder the first time, but the conviction was overturned on a technicality when his lawyer appealed. After the not guilty verdict in the second trial, Peltier posed for media photos in front of Windsor police headquarters next to the courthouse. "I dedicate this one to Windsor police," he said at the time, raising both his middle fingers after leaving the courthouse. "But since we're all lookin' so good, we will take a picture for you guys, if you like."

Celebrate Black History Month

Join OPSEU in celebrating Black History Month
Region 5 invites you to a celebration of Black History and Culture, Tuesday, February 23rd, at the Toronto Regional Office, 31 Wellesley St. E., 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. All members and staff are invited.
First established in the 1950's by the Canadian Negro Women's Association (CANEWA), Black History Month has been celebrated nationally since 1995.
This month is an opportunity to celebrate and learn about the contributions and achievements of African Canadians.

At Toronto West Detention Centre we will be celebrating Black History Month on February 17, 2010 from 1100-1300 hours. Please join us.

The Windsor Star - February 15, 2010

WINDSOR, Ont. -- Guards call them “suitcases” and they’re among the most creative inmates at Windsor Jail.
They’ve figured out ways to smuggle in drugs and other contraband in various body cavities, using techniques even strip searches won’t detect. “They’re the link to the outside. They bring in what they can,” said a jail employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We call them suitcases.” Some do it to satisfy their own addictions while behind bars. Others do it at the bidding of more powerful inmates in the jail’s pecking order, under threat of bodily harm. The worker said Superior Court Justice Steven Rogin was “absolutely right,” in railing against intermittent sentences last week. The judge, presiding over a hearing in which a defence lawyer requested his client be sentenced to weekends in jail, said such sentences are simply not safe. Rogin said inmates expect people serving intermittent sentences to bring contraband into the facility when they arrive on Friday nights. If the inmate on the intermittent sentence doesn’t deliver, he can expect a beating. “Most people have to defend against more than one person,” Rogin said, calling an intermittent sentence the “last thing” he would consider. Rogin’s comments came on the heels of what police call a “vicious attack” on a young inmate. Jesse Brode, 19, had just arrived at the jail after having his bail revoked because the woman who’d agreed to supervise him withdrew her support. A group of prisoners beat Brode unconscious, stomping on his back and paralyzing him from the waist down. Windsor police Friday named inmates they believe were responsible for the Jan. 30 attack. Charged with aggravated assault are Joseph Bonneau, Demetrius Porter, Wesley Paul and Sihat Jahangari. A day earlier, police charged Shane Huard in the attack, arraigning him immediately after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder in a 2006 case. “This is the most serious injury I’ve heard of and I’ve been going to the jail for 22 years,” said local defence lawyer Maria Carroccia, who represents two of the accused men. She said it brought back memories of a 1989 incident in which a Detroit man in Windsor Jail awaiting trial on drug charges had his skull crushed. A spokesman for the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services said officers try to keep inmates serving intermittent sentences segregated from the rest of the prisoner population. But the unnamed jail employee said that’s not always possible because of overcrowding. “The ministry takes every reasonable step to ensure the safety of staff and inmates,” said Stuart McGetrick. Of the 2,153 inmates who came through the jail last year, a small fraction were serving intermittent sentences. The jail has an average of five such inmates at any given time. Following the attack, and word that someone may have smuggled a gun into the jail, the facility was put on lockdown. Inmates were confined to their cells while officers searched every nook and cranny of the jail. No weapon or other “significant contraband” was found, McGetrick said. The jail was last in total lockdown in December. While locking down the entire facility is rare, partial lockdowns are commonplace, said the jail worker. Guards are forever smelling the waft of tobacco or drugs. “We can definitely smell it, but we can’t tell who’s doing it.” Prisoners in the area will be confined to their cells as punishment and to allow officers to search out the contraband. Windsor lawyer Lisa Carnelos, a recent regional director for the Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario, said lawyers are generally pleased with how the jail handles safety issues. But she said inmates are often afraid to complain about harassment by fellow prisoners for fear of retaliation, so the level of violence is likely worse than what defence lawyers hear. “I don’t hear much, but I’m not naive enough to believe it doesn’t exist.” Word doesn’t get out second-hand either. “Clients are so careful not to repeat what is going on,” Carnelos said. “There’s a code of silence.” The safety of jail employees and the inmates they protect is a constant concern for the Ontario Public Services Employees Union, said union spokesman Eddy Almeida. He said the inmate population, especially in a border community like Windsor, has evolved to include gang members and drug addicts with greater predilections for violence. “The inmate population has changed. But it’s not just one institution. It’s across the province.” He said inmates serving intermittent sentences are of special concern. “Every time someone is coming from the outside in, and it’s scheduled — they know that’s where they’re going — it’s a concern.”

Some Questions And Answers On ASMPP

Information in the February 10 edition of Lock Talk has raised some concerns regarding the Attendance Support and Management Pilot Program (ASMPP), the recent grievance decision and the union’s role in the process. Here are some answers to the questions you have been asking.
Q. Why did the union agree to the ASMPP?
A. The union did NOT agree to the ASMPP, it is a management program. Please refer to Appendix COR13, a letter from David Logan dated March 12, 2009.
Q. In the COR 13 letter, the union is involved in a joint committee with the employer. Doesn’t that mean the union agrees to the attendance program?
A. No. The committee is established so that the union can monitor the rates of attendance to make sure the employer is measuring them properly to determine whether the attendance targets as set out in Appendix COR7 are met. The committee is also there so that we can jointly explore other avenues to improving the resources available to help members improve attendance, as well as trying to make our workplaces safer and healthier. The union’s only in the Joint Attendance Strategy and Implementation Committee (JASIC) is to protect the rights of the members who are involved in ASMPP.
Q. Does management have a right to have a sick program?
A. Yes. These programs are commonly found in many workplaces. It is also the union’s right to challenge these programs, which we have and will continue to do.
Q. Why did the union agree to have an expedited grievance decision made on ASMPP?
A. Initially, the union had a scheduled hearing on ASMPP set for February 22nd, 2010. This was the only date we could get scheduled, and many more were going to be needed, possibly stretching out for months or even years.
In the meantime, many of our members were in Stage 3 of ASMPP, and rapidly progressing towards Stage 4. No consideration was being given to why these members were absent, and the members and the union feared that members would be disciplined and possibly fired before we could get the grievances heard at a regular GSB hearing.
GSB Vice-Chair Brian Keller was available for an expedited hearing and the parties agreed to have him hear arguments from both sides. The union agreed to this process so that we could get fast protection for members that are legitimately ill or disabled.
Q. What did the union win at the hearing?
A. As reported in the February 10 Lock Talk, the union achieved significant victories to protect members who are placed in the ASMPP:
· The employer must exercise reasonable discretion with “non-culpable absenteeism” (innocent, or absenteeism that is not within the workers’ control).
· The employer must deal with employees on an individual basis, taking into account individual circumstances, as an employee progresses through the various levels of the ASMPP. Previously, the employer would not take into account the circumstances that led to an employee’s absence. Now they must do so.
· Absences that flow from a disability as defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code must NOT be included in ASMPP.
· The employer cannot terminate any employee for WSIB-related absences.
· The employer must negotiate with the union an expedited process to deal with any grievances arising out of ASMPP.
The only thing the union didn’t get at the hearing was an increase in the ASMPP threshold levels.
Q. Can’t the employer still fire you for innocent absenteeism?
A. Yes. All employers have the right to terminate an employee for innocent absenteeism. However, what the union won at the GSB was the language “reasonable discretion.” It puts additional onus on the employer to defend their decisions. The process must be reasonable and any decision made by the employer under the process must also be reasonable.
Q. Why is “reasonable discretion” so important to the members in this decision?
A. The “reasonable efforts” clause in the 1996 OPS collective agreement (which dealt with layoffs) saved thousands of OPS jobs. Why? Because the employer had to make reasonable efforts to place a laid-off employee in another position (which in most cases, they couldn’t). For those same reasons, “reasonable discretion” will allow the union to argue that, in the event a member is disciplined or terminated for innocent absenteeism, the employer did NOT exercise reasonable discretion in doing so. This language provides a safety net where none existed before.
Q. What are some examples of disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code? A. “Disability” covers a broad range and degree of conditions, some visible and some not. A disability may have been present from birth, caused by an accident, or developed over time. It includes physical, mental, and learning disabilities, mental disorders, hearing or vision disabilities, epilepsy, drug and alcohol dependencies, environmental sensitivities, as well as other conditions. Under the Code, protection from discrimination because of disability includes past, present and perceived conditions.
You can read about disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/disability
Q. Why were all the grievances in Appendix A dismissed?
A. When members see that a grievance is “dismissed” it is interpreted that the grievance was lost. In actuality, the grievances in Appendix A were all worded similar to the Policy/Union Grievance, and it was THAT grievance that went forward to the expedited hearing. After we received the decision from Vice-Chair Keller, the individual grievances were “dismissed” because the gains we won applied to all members affected by ASMPP. However, individual grievances that are specific to a member’s circumstance are still active and moving forward.
Q. Under this program, if I feel I am not being given proper consideration for my medical circumstances, do I have a right to grieve?
In the Award, the employer must negotiate a dispute-resolution system to deal with ASMPP grievances. We want an expedited process that has an attached GSB Vice-Chair with a history of hearing health-issue cases. In the meantime, if you feel that your occurrences of sick time or absenteeism have not been given reasonable consideration, you should bring this to management’s attention and subsequently file a grievance if your concerns are not addressed.
Q. What should I do if the employer will not accept my medical documents?
A. If the employer refuses to accept your documentation of medical requirements, then you should immediately seek advice from your local executive and send a letter to the superintendent/staff services manager.
If you have more questions and concerns, please contact Eddy or Glenna.

Lock Talk - February 10, 2010

ASMPP causing concerns
The past twelve months have been tumultuous to say the least. Your dedication to your chosen profession has been tested and challenged in many ways, yet you have still maintained the highest standards that could be expected of anyone. In our conversations with Correctional Officers and Youth Services Officers, you have told both of your MERC Chairs that one of the most significant stresses you are facing is the employer’s introduction of the Attendance Support Management Pilot Program (ASMPP). We once again emphasize that this was an employer program that was imposed upon the Corrections Division. We refer you back to the COR13 letter from David Logan (March 12, 2009) identifying that the parties agreed to explore programs to improve health, wellness and productivity to improve attendance and address accommodation matters. OPSEU did not at any time agree to this imposed employer program. In fact, once it came into existence, the union filed a policy grievance to challenge the employer’s actions. On September 8, 2009, MERC team representatives as well as OPSEU staff were involved in a thorough Stage Two meeting with senior staff, at which the union detailed your concerns. These concerns were dismissed by the Ministry and dates were set for formal arbitration. At that point, the first date set for arbitration was February 22, 2010. Those of you who have been involved with the regular arbitration process know that nothing moves quickly in arbitration. For example, members who have been involved with the second-hand smoke grievance process are aware that the employer raised thirteen preliminary objections. Two years into the litigation process we appear to be half-way through the employer’s preliminary issues and have not started on the merits of the case. That said, there was a potential that the ASMPP program may have concluded at the end of the current Collective Agreement without a final Award from the Board. As well, many of our members would have the potential stress of being in a Level 4 placement or worse, removed from employment through no fault of their own, and then having to file their own subsequent grievance and begin the arbitration process. Towards the end of January, your MERC chairs had discussions with senior management to have another look at the ASMPP issues. This was in recognition of the stress, the problems with the program, and the need for either agreed-to changes or adjudication of the program. An agreement was struck to utilize Vice-Chair Brian Keller (an adjudicator with more than forty years of mediation-arbitration experience) to assist the parties. If no consensus was achieved, he was charged with issuing a “bottom-line” decision.
The union’s primary thrust involved five concerns:
•Absences related to a disability and/or a workplace injury
•Artificially and unreasonably low thresholds
•Lack of individual consideration for thresholds
•Absences related to public health outbreaks
•Health and safety impacts on individual bargaining unit members
This resulted in a session with the employer that went into the early hours of the morning with numerous attempts to achieve an agreement. Ultimately, the matter was referred to Vice-Chair Keller to issue a binding award. Download the Decision at: http://www.opseu.org/ops/ministry/locktalk/100205_ASMPPdecision.pdf.
What did the union achieve?
In the decision, the employer:
•shall exercise reasonable discretion with non-culpable absenteeism (innocent, or absenteeism that is not within the workers' control) on an individual basis as an employee p through the various levels of the ASMPP.
•shall preclude the consideration of absences that flow from a disability as defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code.
•shall not consider WSIB absences in making any determination at Level 4 of the ASMPP.
•shall consider whether to suspend the ASMPP in the event the World Health Organization or the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health declares a pandemic.
•shall negotiate a dispute resolution process to deal with grievances arising out of the ASMPP.
What didn’t the union achieve?
The union was unable to move the ASMPP’s thresholds higher. We were unsuccessful in arguing that the thresholds utilized under the ASMPP are inadequate to address the conditions our Correctional Officers and Youth Services Officers are required to work in.

Where do we go from here?
In accordance with COR13, the employer and the union are continuing to have discussions in regards to the Joint Attendance Strategy and Implementation Committee. The next meeting is scheduled for February 23, 2010.
ASMPP and Absenteeism Target Incentives clarified
There is some confusion over the different aspects of the Attendance Support Management Pilot Program (ASMPP) (COR13, Page 478, blue book) and the Absenteeism Target Incentives (COR7, Page 469, blue book). These are two separate and distinct issues. The employer imposed the ASMPP (replacing the Attendance Support Program). This applies to all staff within the Correctional Bargaining Unit, working in the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The Absenteeism Target Incentives were specific to Regular (classified) Correctional Officers and Youth Services Officers (COR15). The incentives are payable only to Regular (classified) COs and YSOs. If the targets had not been met, no percentages would have been paid and further there would have been an impact to how overtime is paid (COR 8.2.3A and COR 16.1.1A). This was a negotiated item specific to Correctional Officers and Youth Services Officers under the Collective Agreement. This type of classification payment difference or enhancement is not new to the collective agreement; many classifications have seen specific language attached to their classification. Absences involving Fixed-Term Employees (unclassified) or any other employee who works in the institutions were not included in the calculation. These staff are not covered by the lump sum payment. The calculation will be based on two per cent of the employee’s straight-time hourly rate as of December 2009, for the period from March 12, 2009 through to December 31, 2009. Overtime hours worked between March 12 and December 31, 2009 will be included in the incentive payment calculation as straight time. According to the employer, the target date for pay-out will be May 13, 2010. It is the employer’s position that the incentive monies will NOT be paid out on paid leaves of absences. OPSEU will challenge this decision. OPSEU and the employer are currently in discussions in regards to the numerous questions that have been raised. A Q&A will be issued shortly.

ASMPP GSB Decision - February 5, 2010

Decision
[1] The Union filed a number of grievances, on behalf of its members, dealing with the Attendance Support and Management Pilot Program. Given the number of grievances, and the importance of resolving this matter as expeditiously as possible, the parties agreed on an expedited process to deal with the grievances. Essentially, it was agreed that the parties would provide me with whatever materials they considered relevant, and would then make submissions on the matter. I was asked to, after considering the materials, as well as the submissions. issue a bottom line decision, without reasons. I was requested, as well, to issue the decision in point form, for ease of understanding based on the parties submissions. After considering the submissions of the parties, as well as the documents submitted, I hereby make
the following Orders:
1. The Attendance and Support Management Office of the Ministry of Government Services shall exercise reasonable discretion to deal with nonculpable absenteeism on a case-by-case basis at progression through levels of the program.
2. The Employer shall give proper consideration of implications arising under the Ontario Human Rights Code and preclude the consideration of absences that flow from a Disability as defined by the Code.
3. The Employer shall preclude the consideration of WSIB absences in making any determination at Level 4 of the ASMPP.
4. In the event of a declared pandemic by the World Health Organization or the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, the Employer will consider whether to suspend the ASMPP, and notify OPSEU of their decision.
5. The Parties shall meet to negotiate a dispute resolution process to deal with grievances arising out of the ASMPP.
6. All of the grievances identified in Appendix A are hereby dismissed.

Dated at Toronto this 5th day of February 2010.
Brian M. Keller, Vice-Chair