HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3394.Ferbeek.07-01-31 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-3394, 2004-3559
UNION# 2004-0368-0142, 2005-0368-0005
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Ferbeek) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Karen Martin
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING December 14, 2006.
DEADLINE FOR
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
January 17, 2007.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to
reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have
agreed to a “True Mediation-Arbitration” process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this
matter in mediation. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
The grievor is a nurse. She filed two overtime grievances. The first was with respect a day shift
and night shift on December 11, 2004, and the second with respect to a night shift on October 15,
2004. The grievor alleges that she had made herself available for all these shifts, but was not
called in. She argues that the overtime signup process for nurses is dependent on a handwritten
list maintained by the manager, and that it is often inaccurate, which leads to unfair and
inequitable distribution of overtime opportunities. With respect to the October 15 shift, the
grievor concedes that the employee hired had the same number of hours worked that week, i.e.
40 hours, but argues that she is more senior, and should have been offered the shift first.
The employer responds that there was no overtime for the day shift on December 11, but that a
nurse was reassigned, and her shift was not backfilled. In addition, the employer’s records
3
indicate that a message was left at the grievor’s home number on December 11 offering the night
shift, but she did not respond. The employer’s records do not indicate whether the message was
left with a specific family member. With respect to the October 15 shift, the employer’s records
indicate the grievor was called, but there was no answer at her residence.
DECISION
After considering the facts and submissions of the parties, it is my conclusion that these
grievances should be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of January, 2007.
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair