HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1137.Blades.05-09-19 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 1998-1137
UNION# 1998-0582-0014 [98A885]
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Blades) Union
- and -
The Crown m RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Timothy Bmgham
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING August 2, 2005
2
DeCISIon
The partIes agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol for the Toronto East
DetentIOn Centre It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say that
the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process wherem each party provIdes the vIce-chair wIth
wntten submIssIOns, whIch mclude the facts and authontIes the party mtends to rely upon, one
week pnor to the heanng. At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not to be called, although the VIce-
chair IS permItted to request further mformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes
apparent to the vIce-chair that the Issues mvolved m a partIcular case are of a complex or
sIgmficant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through
"regular" arbItratIOn, I e ImmedIately scheduled through the Jomt FIle RevIew process
Although mdIvIdual gnevors often wIsh to proVIde oral eVIdence at arbItratIOn, the process
adopted by the partIes proVIdes for a thorough canvassmg of the facts pnor to the heanng, and
leads to a fair and efficIent adjudIcatIOn process
ThIS gnevance relates to the gnevor's contmuous servIce date (CSD) and was filed September 8
1998 The gnevor was hIred as an unclaSSIfied correctIOns officer m May 1988 He became a
claSSIfied employee m October 1989 GIven hIS pnor servIce, hIS contmuous servIce date has
been adjusted to October 1988 The umon agrees that the employer has accurately recorded the
hours worked by the gnevor dunng the penod of hIS unclaSSIfied employment, and that the
number of full-tIme weeks worked has been properly calculated m accordance wIth Art. 18 l(b)
of the collectIve agreement. The gnevor dId not challenge the calculatIOn of the hours attnbuted
to hIm by the employer nor dId he assert that there had been Improper motIve or actIOns related
to the schedulIng of hIS hours He SImply alleges that, dunng the penod of hIS unclaSSIfied
3
employment, he was avaIlable to work full tIme hours every week, and that other unclassIfied
employees hIred at or around the same tIme as hIm worked full tIme hours more often. Thus, the
gnevor submIts that hours were not evenly dIstnbuted dunng hIS tIme as an unclassIfied
employee, and that, If they had been, hIS CSD would properly be dated to approXImately May
1988
The employer responds that no records were kept of the dIstnbutIOn of hours dunng the tIme m
questIOn, that shIfts were filled by a number of dIfferent managers that, gIven the passage of
tIme It IS not possIble to reconstruct the CIrcumstances and, that the collectIve agreement does
not contam a reqUIrement that hours be evenly dIstnbuted among unclaSSIfied employees
Havmg reVIewed the eVIdence and the submISSIOns of the partIes, It IS my VIew that there was no
collectIve agreement reqUIrement to dIstnbute hours to unclaSSIfied employees m any specIfic
manner or m accordance WIth any specIfic test or measure As a result, there IS no eVIdence of a
breach of the collectIve agreement, and the gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto, thIS 19th day of September 2005
I~