Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1192.James.92-03-09 I . ONTARIO EMPL OYÈS DE LA COURONNE ~ CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL 'ONTA AID 11111 GRIEVANCE CpMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITe 2100, TORONTO, ONTARfO, M5Cì lZS TêLEPHQNnTÉLÉPHONE,' (41$) )2$-1)88 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G lZ8 FAcSIMILEITËLËCOPIE: (416) 326- 1396 1l92/90 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under I THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLBCTIVBBARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (James) Grievor - and - I The Crown in 'Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional services) Em.ployer BEFORE: G. simmons Vice-Chairperson J. Carruthers Member F. Reeve Member FOR THE P. Cavalluzzo GRIEVOR Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Shilton Barristers & Solicitors ·,OR THE c. Foster EMPLOYER Grievance Officer Ministry of Correctional Services HEARING June 26, 1991 1 , I . I 2 This grievance is concerned with a denial of a four hour partial shift change on Tuesday. June 19, 1990 between the hours of 1900 and 2300. TIle grievance reads (Exhibit 1): was denied a four hour shift exchange for Tues. June 19/90. It was suggested to use lieu time from my bank by scheduling Officer J, Meyer. I feel that I have been discriminated against as 'there is <md has been a number of partial shift exchanges in the past. The settlement that is requested on the grievance form reads: 1/ Parna! shIft exchanges be allowed and applied equally to all staff. The facts are not in dispute. Mr. James. tne Grievor, is a Correctional Officer 2 at the Watkerton Jail. He was first employed in 1984 at the Guelph Correctional Centre as a casual Correctional Officer 1 and in May. 1985 he became a full-time probationary Correctional Officer 1. In October. 1989, he applied for a competition for a position at the Walkerton Jail and was successful. The shift schedules present1y at the Walkerton Jail ore: 0700 hours to 1900 hours 1900 hours to 0700 hours 1100 hours to 2300 hours The evidence revealed t"hat these schedules are bosed on thirteen weeks which rotate every three weeks, I I 3 The evldence further revealed that during the spring and early summer in 1990 there were what is referred to as "partial shift exchanges" being permitted at Walkerton Jail. These partial shifts appear to be four hour periods but they could vary depending on the circumstances (Exhibit 2), On June 19, 1990, the Griever arranged an exchange with a Mr. Steve Bradley for four hours of work between 1900 and 2300 hours on ff1e July 27, 1990 shift (Exhibit 3). He stated that the reason for his request was a "personal family matte(. Mr. John Meyer, a shift supervisor for ten years and the shift scheduler for nine years, denied the request and testified that the Grievor's request was not for personal family matters but could not recall precisely what the reason for the request was. The evidence revealed that the Grievor had sixty-six lieu time hours in the bank and Mr. Meyer said that he would have to take lieu time if he wanted the time off. Mr. Meyer further testified that the reason the Grievor wanted to conduct the exchange was because he did not want to encroach on the built-up lieu time hours because he had intentions of using them in the Fall to go' fishing. It was Mr, Meyer's evidence that partial exchanges are granted only as a last resort such as if a spouse was ill or in hospital or even if ,there was an illness involving an uncle, aunt etc. As stated, Mr. Meyer could not recall. precisely the reason for this request but remained of the view that it was not a personal family matter. The Collective Agreement addresses this issue in Article 1 0.3 which reads: A shift may be changed without any premium or penalty jf agreed upon between the employee and the ministry, 1 ~ 4 It is to be noted that the Collective AgrE~ement doøs not speak in terms of "partial shift exchanges" but simply refers to it as a "shi1~'. It is true that partial shift exchanges had been granted in the past but in order for there to be a past practice argument raising estoppel there must be an ambiguity of the Collective Agreement contained In the wording in order to rely on extrinsic evidence, We fail to see any ambiguity in the above amcle. If one lóoks closely at the grievance It will be seen that the settlement desired is that "partial shift exchanges be allowed and applied equally to all staff'. There is no request for any rectification of what transpired on June 19, 1990. That is, the Grievor does not seek restoration of four hours of lieu time, Accorclingly, the issue is very narrow. Must the Employer grant part1al shift exchanges in a reasonable manner when requested to do so? The Board is of the opinion th()t the~e is no obligation on the Employer to grant pamol shift exchanges, PO/tial shift exchanges are not addressed in the Collective Agreement but shifts may be changed between employees providing the ministry approves pursuant to Article 10.3. What the requirements of the ministry may be in permitting 13mploýees to exchange shifts is not in issue in this particular grievance and thø Board declines to pursue it further. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the {~rievance is denied. Finally, the Boa(d finds it difficult to comprehend why it was necessary to proceed to arbitration to resolve this issue. Surely, matters of this nature ought to be able to be worked out between management and staff within the institution. l ~. 5 An element of common sense and co~peration would. we think. go a long way in alleviating the problems that arose In this matter. We urge the Parties within the institution to consider our comments in this paragraph as being offered as constructive criticism. Dated at Kingston. Ontario. this 9th day of. March, 1992, ß4. -75 C. Gordon' Simmons Vice Chairperson . ~j~- .. .~.. , -~ J. Carruthers Union Member ---7 / ,.' J /. -,í //~ '/ . -~'--h//Z' - F, Reeve Employer Member .