HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1983.Czekierda et al.90-09-12,-~ ONTARIO EMPLOY~-S OE LA COURONNE
'~ CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSiON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8- SUITE 2t00 TELEPHONE/TI~L~PHONE
180. RUE DUNDAS OUEST. TORONTO. (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8- BUREAu 2100 (416) 598-0688
1983/89
lg87/Sg, 1089/8q
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
TH~ CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
..BETWEEN
OPSEU (Czekier~a et al)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
{}inistry of Community and Social Services)
Employer
- and -
BEFORE: Bo Keller Vice-Chairperson
G. Majesky Member
G..Milley Member
FOR THE R. Stephenson
GKIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers &Solicitors
FOR TBE S. Patterson
EMPLOYEE Legal Services Branch
Ministry of Community
Social Services
HEARING: June 27, 1990
- 2 -
DECISION
The grievors claim to have been unjustly disciplined by a shift
schedule change. They seek to have the previous shift schedule
re-introduced.
Counsel for the employer took the position from the outset that
the issue being grieved falls within the rights of management
provided in section 18 of the Crown Employees Collective
Bar~ainin~ Act and, in particular, that the matter of shift
changes is a matter of organization and/or assignment. Counsel
for the grievors took the position that the issue of scheduling
per se is a management right but in the instant case, the manner
in which it was done, and the motive, made the change tantamount
to discipline. The Board informed the parties that it was
prepared to hear evidence in order to determine whether the
changes were made for disciplinary or punitive reasons.
Ms. Alicia Czekier~a, a grievor and union representative at the
time of the grievances testified. The grievors are all
residential counsellors employed at the Oxford Regional Centre, a
facility for the developmentally handicapped. The facility is a
24 hour operation. Prior to the grievance the residents were
housed, and the staff worked, in 10 residences. Four, including
the one in which the grievor worked (Meadowood 2) Were on an
eight hour shift, Sunday to Saturday rotation. One (Fairview)
was, until the spring of 1989, on an eight hour shift, Monday to
Sunday. Five residences were on 12 hour shifts, Monday to
Sunday.. In the spring of 1989 Fairview adopted a Monday to
Sunday schedule but stayed on eight hours per day.
The Centre has 'recently undergone a downsizing operation with
four residences being closed. As a result, the grievor and the
remainder of the staff in that residence were transferred to the
Fairview residence. All the Fairview staff except for two
transferred elsewhere. At ~the time the employees were told of
the move they were also informed that their work. schedule was
being changed to 12 hours per day, Monday to Sunday. This change
affected about 68 employees. Just over 200 were already on the
other shift. The result is that all employees work the same
number of hours per shift and on a Sunday to Monday basis. The
pay week of the Ministry is Sunday to Monday.
From the evidence of Ms. Czekierda, it was clear that the
grievors have two main concerns. The first has to do with a
perceived lack of consultation prior to the implementation of the
change. The second is a concern that their ability to schedule
long weekends off is somehow compromised. Also expressed was a
concern about her ability, as a union representative to
meaningfully consult with her supervisor to try and resolve
employee's problems.
Clearly the'first two areas of concern, even if true do not
constitute discipline. The first is. at best, if proved, a
possible violation of the collective agreement. The second might
result in employees having to alter the manner in which they
schedule and enjoy their leisure time. But of themselves, taking
into account the downsizing and the standardization of shift
schedules they are neither disciplinary nor punitive. With
regard to the last concern, the evidence was that the decision to
effect the shift change was not that of the grievor's supervisor.
There is no proof that shows any relationship between the
difficulties testified to by Ms. Czekier~la about the relationship
with her supervisor and the shift change.
The union has not preyed that the shift change was disciplinary
or punitive. The grievances are dismissed.
Nepean 12th' day September 1990
M. Brian Keller, Vice-~hairperson
"I DISSENT" (Dissent without written reason)
Gary Maj esky, Member
George Milley, Member