Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-1454.Stockwood.88-11-02q q BOARD CQMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS IN THE NATI!ER OF AN ARBITRATION Under TEE CROWNEKPDXEES COLIJKTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE s- BOARD Between: OPSEU (Donald Stockwood) -and- Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer Before: i. For the Grievor: For the EQmloVer: Hearina : 'P. Draper Vice-Chairperson I. Freedman Member D.' Wallace Member s. T. Goudge Counsel GoWling and Henderson Barristers and Solicitors N. A. Eber Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton'Stewart Storie Barristers and Solicitors January 8, 1988 1 DECISION The Grievor, Donald Stockwood, is a Correctional Officer 2 employed at the Toronto East Correctional Centre. Under the shift schedule posted as provided in the collective agreement and not changed thereafter the Grievor worked his scheduled 6245 a.m. - 3:15~ p-m. shift on October 13, 1906. He .was.~called in later on the same date and worked from 11:4!j p.m. to 7:15 a.m. on October 14th for which he was paid time and one-half in accordance with the overtime provisions of the collective agreement. The Grievor then continued at work on his scheduled 6~45 a.m. - 3:15 p.m. shift on October 14th for which he was paid straight time. It is argued for the Grievor that he is entitled to i. the premium specified in Article 10.2 of the collective agreement because that article applies where periods of time are worked without a twelve-hour period of rest between them and there was no such period between the overtime period and the scheduled shift of October 14th. It is submitted for the Employer that Article 10.2 is applicable only where an employee is required to work a scheduled shift within twelve hours of the completion of another scheduled shift. i ;, ^ L. Article 10.2 reads: Every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid scheduling the commencement of a shift within twelve (12) hours of the completion of the employee's previous shift provided however, that. if an employee is required to work before twelve (12) hours have elapsed the shall be paid time and one-half (1 l/2) fork those hours that fall within the twelve (12) hour period. 2 As Article 10.2 has been interpreted in earlier decisions, the time and one-half premium is payable only where an employee "is required to work" on a scheduled shift and only for the part of the shifty that falls within twelve hours of the completion of his preceding scheduled shift. It applies only to hours that would otherwise be paid at straight time. If overtime is worked in conjunction with a scheduled shift the overtime premium found elsewhere inthe collective agreement is payable. i. Morin. 74/77, is authority for the proposition that Article 10.2 is a constraint only on the scheduling of regular hours of work and that the phrase "the employee's previous shift" refers to his previously scheduled shift. The Board has consistently followed norin and .in doing so has declined repeated invitations to overturn it, which we also now do. Murohv. 593/83 and Gram, 1339/84 held that a Vmprevious shift" includes both previously scheduled hours and any overtime hours by which the scheduled shift is extended. In both those cases a previous shift was extended by overtime 3 which brought it to within twelve hours of the next scheduled shift. The premium specified in Article 10.2 was found to be payable. Counsel to the Grievor considerately informed us that two cases turning on the interpretation of Article 10.2, Klonowski. 566/86 and Modland., had been heard but were not yet decided by the date of our hearing. There the respective grievors, as in the present case, worked a scheduled shift, were off work for eight hours, worked an overtime period and continued at work on their next scheduled shift. Both decisions have new been issued and in each case the Board found that the grievor, having been paid the overtime premium for the time worked within twelve hours of the completion of his previous scheduled..shift, was not entitled to premium pay under Article 10.2. The latter two decisions speak directly to the issue here and give a complete answer to the grievance., Although not argued before us, they compel the conclusion that the grievance must be dismissed. See Blake 1276/87 etc. It seems to us appropriate to suggest that since the parties continue to disagree about the meaning and intent of Article 10.2, it would be in their mutual interest to consider a revision of its language. -- I s L 4 Dated this at Consecon, Ontario this 2nd day of November 1988. P. Draper, Vice-Chairperson I. Freedman, Member I _____--------- D. Wallace, Member