HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0504.Sipila.13-07-09 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#2012-0504
UNION#2010-0368-0176
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Sipila) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Joseph D. Carrier Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Jackie Crawford and Laura Josephson
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER Laura McCready and Antoinette Karner
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisors
HEARING June 25, 2013
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The grievance of Ms. Jennifer Sipila was referred to mediation/arbitration in accordance
with Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement between OPSEU (The Union) and the Ontario
Crown, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (M.C.S.C.S., The Employer).
There was no challenge to my jurisdiction to hear and rule on the matter. Further, the Parties
requested the decision be issued on a without precedent or prejudice basis, and without extensive
reasons.
[2] Ms. Jennifer Sipila a Correctional Officer at the Lindsay Correctional facility grieved
that, for the 2009 period, she was improperly denied her Incentive Allowance which is provided
for in an Appendix to the Collective Agreement, COR7-Special Adjustments.
[3] The Incentive Allowance is, in essence, a good attendance bonus which is an earned team
or group benefit. Where the average absenteeism for the group during a set time frame does not
exceed a designated target, each member of the group is entitled to an incentive allowance.
[4] In the case here, Ms. Sipila’s home position continued to be that of a regular Correctional
Officer during the relevant time frame; however, she was, nonetheless, temporarily on
secondment or assignment to the position of Discharge Planner. That is a different classification
which entails different duties from those of a Corrections Officer and enjoys a different wage
scale. As such she was not included in the group of Correctional Officers whose absences were
counted for the purposes of determining the average attendance for the relevant time frame.
- 3 -
[5] It is my view, that, since she was in the classification and treated as a Discharge Planner
and not a member of the group of Correctional Officers (C.O.) included in that calculation, it
would be inappropriate to consider her as eligible or entitled to share in the attendance bonus
earned by the C.O. group during the relevant time frame.
[6] This is consistent with a finding of Vice-Chair Abramsky who found that:
“……..Appendix COR7 cannot be read to include hours away from work
on leaves or secondments”.
(see GSB File #2010-0405, May 20, 2011 at paragraph 32 (R. Abramsky)
[7] In the circumstances, the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 9th day of July 2013.
Joseph D. Carrier, Vice-Chair