The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-0561.Jasmin.12-12-07 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#2010-0561 UNION#2009-0633-0012 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Jasmin) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Attorney General) Employer BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Peter Dailleboust Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel HEARING June 15, 2012. - 2 - Decision [1] In the collective bargaining negotiations that took place in 2005, the parties agreed to insert a new Appendix 32 into the Collective Agreement. That provision provided for a change of status for a number of employees from fixed term to the new category of “flexible part time” (hereinafter referred to as “FPT”). At the outset the Employer referred to this initiative as the “Revitalized Workforce Project” (“RWP”). As of January 1, 2008 it has been commonly known as “Integrated Labour Relations Strategy” or “ILRS”. [2] This change brought about many employee questions and ultimately, a number of disputes/grievances. [3] By all accounts, there were a number of areas in the initial language of Appendix 32 that required clarification. Accordingly, in an effort to continue to work together through many of the identified problem areas, the parties negotiated a series of agreements regarding the various matters needing to be addressed. Additionally, in an ongoing effort to resolve outstanding issues that continued to arise, amendments were made to Appendix 32 in the next (and now current) Collective Agreement. [4] On September 13, 2007, the parties agreed to a number of amendments in a fairly comprehensive Memorandum of Agreement. This Agreement resolved the identified disputes that had been outstanding and further recognized that future grievances might arise. In large measure, the amendments agreed upon in the September 13, 2007 Memorandum of Agreement were incorporated into Appendix 32 of the current Collective Agreement. [5] Since September of 2007, approximately two hundred grievances have been filed. In an effort to resolve these matters efficiently, the parties worked together to create a process for the efficient litigation of all outstanding issues. To that end, a number of grievances have been heard and decided by the Board. Those decisions have resolved a number of outstanding matters. [6] Given the passage of time and the number of grievances that had yet to be determined, the parties agreed that it was in their collective interest to further streamline the litigation - 3 - process. In considering various options, it was agreed to investigate the possibility of adopting a process similar to that utilized by the Union and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services regarding “transition grievances”. Those grievances, which were many hundred in number, were filed as the result of the major re-organization within that Ministry. Given my experience in that process my assistance was sought in this matter. [7] At our hearing held on January 18, 2010, the parties agreed to a number of issues including: o All grievances outstanding as of January 18, 2010 and those filed in the foreseeable future flowing from the interpretation, application and administration of Appendix 32 will be referred to me for determination. o While it is understood that all decisions under this process will be consistent, they are without precedent or prejudice in accordance with Article 22.16.2. o I will determine the process to be followed for the litigation of these matters. [8] The process for the litigation of the remaining grievances should be efficient and provide a timely and appropriate final resolution. In arriving at my decision in this regard, consideration was given to Article 22.16.2 which states: The mediator/arbitrator shall endeavour to assist the parties to settle the grievance by mediation. If the parties are unable to settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator/arbitrator shall determine the grievance by arbitration. When determining the grievance by arbitration, the mediator/arbitrator may limit the nature and extent of the evidence and may impose such conditions as he or she considers appropriate. The mediator/arbitrator shall give a succinct decision within five (5) days after completing proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise. [9] As was the case in the “transition” process, there are a large number of grievances to determine and the parties are agreed that “traditional arbitration” will not serve their purpose. Therefore, in accordance with my jurisdiction to so determine, these matters will be litigated on the following basis: - 4 - • Grievances are to be presented by way of each party presenting a statement of the facts with appropriate documents, if any, and accompanying submissions. I understand that in many cases, particulars have been provided and documents exchanged. That preparatory work should further assist efficiency. • I recognize that some grievors and managerial employees may wish to attend and provide oral evidence. However, given the task at hand and the time by which to do it, I order only the committee members from each party will attend. • It may be that in a few instances some confusion might arise regarding certain facts. It might also happen that I will find that insufficient evidence has been provided. In those instances, should they arise, I will direct the parties to speak again with their principles to ascertain the facts or the rationale behind the particular outstanding matter. In the event I find there is still uncertainty regarding facts, I reserve the right to ask for viva voce evidence. It is my hope that this need shall never arise. • Hopefully decisions can be issued within a relatively short period of time following submissions. My decisions will contain brief reasons and sufficient rationale so as to provide the parties with an interpretation thereby allowing them to move forward. [10] Ms. Micheline Jasmin is a flexible part time courtroom clerk in North Bay. She filed a grievance that alleged violations of various provisions of Appendix 32 because the Employer scheduled her to work four days per week instead of five. She also takes issue with the Employer’s unilateral altering of her posted schedule. Another complaint is that when the grievor requests not to be scheduled for a five day week she is obliged to take time. Finally, she grieves the Employer cancellation of scheduled shifts that would cause the grievor to move into annual overtime hours. [11] It was the grievor’s view that this method of scheduling is not only a violation of the collective agreement but causes her great personal disruption. For example, she makes her child care arrangements and personal appointments based on her posted schedule and alterations to that schedule are difficult for her to re-arrange. [12] Included in the documentation provided was an email from the grievor’s supervisor which reveals that the scheduling of flexible part time for a four day week began at the request of - 5 - staff. It was also noted that although efforts would be made to schedule a four day week instead of five days, business operations might cause the schedule to change. [13] The grievor also provided approximately fifty instances (over a three year period) where her schedule was changed. The reason for the change was stated in each case and the three major reasons were: • Day off cancelled in order to ensure that the grievor’s minimum number of hours were met; • A scheduled day of work cancelled so that the grievor was not working overtime; • Schedule change due to operational requirements such as the grievor being required in court on a particular day. [14] The Employer was of the view that its method of scheduling in the North Bay Court was not in violation of the collective agreement. [15] I am of the view that this grievance must fail. There is nothing in Appendix 32 or elsewhere in the collective agreement which would bar the Employer from scheduling the grievor and managing its schedule as it has. Indeed, Article 3(g) of Appendix 32 states that the Employer “will make reasonable efforts subject to operational feasibility to ensure employees are scheduled to work the minimum annual hours for their category”. This is precisely what the Employer is doing when it has cancelled a day off for the grievor to have her meet her minimum hours. [16] Further, the Employer is entitled to cancel shifts to ensure that overtime hours are not incurred. FPTs have no contractual right to overtime hours and the Employer can manage the schedule in order to be more fiscally sound. [17] I appreciate that the grievor might find the change of schedules frustrating. However, there has been no violation of the collective agreement. - 6 - [18] Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 7th day of December 2012. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair