HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1875.Peladeau.94-09-12
~ ~~ I
.'" ~
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
, GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
11111 SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
\ BOARD DES GRIEFS _.
1
-
---..
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO MSG lZ8 TE12EPHONEITELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G 1Z8 ( FACS/MILEITELECOPIE (416) 326-'1396
! J
I 1875/93
I IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
I Under
I THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
I Before
I THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
I
f )
BETWEEN:
OPSEU (R. PELADEAU)
Grievor
..-
- and -
}
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of th~ Solicitor General and Correction~l Services)
(
Employer
Before: J.H. DeVlin, Vice Chairperson
For the Grievor: L. Yearwood
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer: M Mously
Grievance & Negotiation Officer
Correctional Services Division
Ministry of the Solicitor General
and Correctional services
Hearing: August 25, 1994
------
.;;:;:.. ~~
" -'
-
1
-
Th~ Grievor, Ronald Peladeau, is employed as a
--
Correctional Officer at the Rideau Correctional and Treatment
centre and claims that he was improperly denied shecial and
compassionate leave for his full shift on August 19, 1993.
On that date, the Grie~or was scheduled to work on a \
shift which extended from 9.00 a m to 9.00 p.m. While driving
to work, his car broke down and he arrange~ for it to be towed to
a service station which is located some 25 kilometres from the
workplace The Grievor testified that he arrived at the service
station at approximately 10:00 a.m and waited until 2.00 p.m. )
when his car was taken into the garage. At approximately 3:00
I
p.m., the Grievor was advised that his car could not be repaired
until the following day. The Grievot did not report for work for
'"
the balance of his shift and subsequently submitted a request for
special and compassionate leave as a result of which he was
granted 4 hours' paid leave. It is the position of the Union,
however, that the Grievor ought to have granted leave for his
full shift.
As the Grievor lives in smith Falls, I understand that
he does not have the benefit of public transportation to and from
the workplace. Nevertheless, once the Grievor's car had been
I
towed to the service station and it was apparent that it would
not be taken into the garage right away, in my view, there was no
-
necessity for the Grievor to remain with the vehicle At that
\
\ I
I
~....~
$' -
(
, 2
juncture, the Grievor ought to have taken steps to find another
means of transportation to work, even if this involved taking a
taxi. In the circumstapces, therefore, I cannot conclude that
the Employer's decision to grant the Grievor 4 hours' leave under
Article 55 was unreasonable or discriminatory or that the
Emp~oyer failed to consider the merits of the Grievor's request
~In the result, the grievance is denied.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 12th day of september, 1994~
~ .
10il"L ,~ ~
Vice Chairperson
~
"
~
-
'- --