Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0196.Todorovic et al.05-08-30 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# 2003-0196 2003-0197 2003-0756 UNION# 2003-0234-0082,2003-0234-0083 2003-0234-0146 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (TodoroVIC et al) Union - and - The Crown In 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 whereIn each party provIdes the vIce-chair wIth wntten submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes the party Intends 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 InfOrmatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent to eIther party or the vIce-chair that the Issues Involved In 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 IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at arbItratIOn, the process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts pnor to the heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adJudIcatIOn process The partIes agreed to a Compressed Work Week (CWW) agreement covenng Umts 5 6 and 7 The gnevances all relate to the fact that the schedule contaInS five day ShIft posItIOns on Fnday although the fifth posItIOn has never been filled. The umon alleges that the faIlure to fill the fifth posItIOn IS a breach of the staffing levels agreed between the partIes In the CWW agreement. The umon further alleges that, SInce no employee was scheduled to work the ShIftS, the hours In questIOn should have been made avaIlable as overtIme, and the gnevors allege they have mIssed such overtIme opportumtIes The employer responds that the CWW agreement deals wIth hours of work, and contaInS an undertakIng that provIdes for a schedule that results In a balanced dIstnbutIOn of hours at the end of the CWW rotatIOn. The employer states that the CWW IS not a "manmng" provIsIOn, that It reserves ItS nght to determIne how many employees are reqUIred to 3 fill a partIcular shIft, and that neIther the CWW agreement nor collectIve agreement contaIn guarantees of specIfic staffing levels on any partIcular shIft. HavIng carefully 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 30th day of August, 2005 '"'