HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1782.Fraser.13-01-15 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#2010-1782, 2011-0913
UNION# 2010-0247-0006, 2011-0247-0004
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Fraser) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Staff Relations Officer
HEARING January 8, 2013.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Brantford Jail agreed to participate in the
Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol.
Some of the grievances were settled through that process. However, these two
grievances remained unresolved and therefore require a decision from this Board. The
Protocol provides that decisions will be issued within a relatively short period of time
after the actual mediation sessions and will be without reasons. Further, the decision is to
be without prejudice and precedent.
[2] Mr. James Fraser is a Correctional Officer who filed two grievances regarding
overtime.
[3] The first grievance alleged that he was not assigned an overtime shift in
accordance with the HPRO protocol because the work at issue was given to a fixed term
employee. By way of remedy he asked for twelve hours of overtime pay as well as fixed
shifts “be clawed back once they work forty hours.”
[4] The Board was provided the scheduling documentation HPRO information for the
shift at issue. I accept that the overtime shift at issue in this grievance was worked by
another classified Correctional Officer and not a fixed term employee. There were fixed
term employees working during that particular shift but they had been scheduled to work
in advance and at straight time hours. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.
[5] The second grievance also alleged an HPRO violation. It was asserted that the
Employer withdrew an offer of overtime work. It was uncontested by the Employer that
the grievor was called and offered an overtime shift. As he was not at home a message
was left. Sometime later he called to accept the shift. The grievor alleged he was told
that the shift was given to someone else but the Correctional Officers at work that
evening were told that no one agreed to work.
- 3 -
[6] In any event, the issue before this Board is whether the Employer can withdraw
an offer of overtime. I am of the view that a withdrawal of a shift, that is to say that no
one is improperly assigned to work overtime on a shift, is not a violation of HPRO.
Generally a remedy under HPRO is given to remedy the case where the Employer
mistakenly gives the overtime work to another. That is not the case here. There was no
overtime shift assigned. Speaking generally, Management has the right to determine if
the shift needs an overtime assignment.
[7] I understand why the grievor filed the grievance in the first instance if he was led
to believe that some other Correctional Officer was given the overtime shift ahead of
him. It would have been preferable if the communication to the grievor at the time of his
initial discussion with the OM had been clear.
[8] Having heard the facts and submissions in this matter, I must dismiss this
grievance.
Dated in Toronto this 15th day of January 2013.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice Chair