HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0765.Banks.05-08-29 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# 2002-0765
UNION# 2002-0234-0035 [02A541]
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano Public Service Employees Umon
(Banks) Union
- and -
The Crown m Right of Ontano
(Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectiOnal Services) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles
Gnevance Officer
Ontano Public Service Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mike Bnscoe
Staff RelatiOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectiOnal Services
HEARING June 2, 2005
2
DeCISIon
The parties agreed to an Expedited MediatiOn-ArbitratiOn Protocol for the Maplehurst
CorrectiOnal Complex. 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 called, although the vice-chair
is permitted to request further mformatiOn or documentatiOn. In additiOn, if it becomes apparent
to either party or 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. 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
The gnevance raises matters related to allegatiOns that the employer failed to follow the overtime
protocol The umon stated at the heanng that it had made attempts to contact the gnevor by
mail and through the local's reView of itS records, m order to submit further particulars and
mformatiOn, but no such mformatiOn was forthcommg.
3
Havmg reviewed the eVidence presented and the submissiOns of the parties, it is my View that
there is no eVidence of a breach of the collective agreement. As a result, the gnevance is
dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 29th day of August, 2005