Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0252.Douglas.05-10-17 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 1 Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2003-0252 UNION# 2004-0234-0087 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Douglas) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Manlyn A Nairn Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Rena Khan Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING October 6 2005 2 DeCISIon The partIes have agreed to an expedIted medIatIOn-arbItratIOn process to determIne gnevances at the Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex and Vamer Centre for Women. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to attempt to resolve matters at medIatIOn, faIlIng whIch, they have agreed to utIlIze an expedIted arbItratIOn process In preparatIOn, each party provIdes the Vice-Chair wIth wntten submIssIOns one week pnor to the heanng. Those submIssIOns Include a statement of the facts, as well as the argument (supported by any authontIes) on whIch each party Intends to rely At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the Vice-Chair may request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent to eIther party or to the Vice-Chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex 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 and at the heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adJudIcatIOn process In thIS case, the gnevance asserts that the employer IS In vIOlatIOn of the collectIve agreement by faIlIng to credIt the gnevor laIn Douglas, wIth servIce from 1984 to 1989 There was no dIspute that the gnevor resIgned hIS employment wIth the OPS In 1989 on good terms and for personal reasons He returned to the OPS In 1991 and worked untIl he was surplused In 2005 The gnevor asserted that he was beIng treated dIfferently from other employees who had left the Mimstry and returned to have earlIer servIce recogmzed. FIrstly It IS not now possIble to predIct how the gnevor's contInUOUS servIce date may have been calculated upon hIS return to the OPS In 1991 had the matter been pursued at that tIme The terms of the collectIve agreement may or may not have been the same or been admInIstered In the same manner At the expedIted arbItratIOn heanng the gnevor's concern centred on how others were treated. He descnbed persons as havIng taken leaves of theIr own accord. A leave of absence, whIch may be granted for a vanety of reasons, may not result In a break In servIce The partIcular detaIls and CIrcumstances are not clear although It may well be 3 the case that there are sItuatIOns where an IndIVIdual had pnor servIce recogmzed for reasons whIch are not now before me ThIS gnevance filed In 2003 flows from the 2002-2004 collectIve agreement. The language IS clear ArtIcle 18 provIdes that semonty IS based on "contInUOUS servIce" that IS, servIce whIch IS not Interrupted by a separatIOn from employment wIth the OPS HavIng resIgned In 1989 the gnevor's servIce was Interrupted. The collectIve agreement stIpulates that he IS therefore not entItled to have any servIce pnor to hIS return In 1991 recogmzed for purposes of calculatIng hIS semonty HavIng carefully revIewed the eVIdence and submIssIOns of the partIes, I find that there IS no basIs for recogmZIng the gnevor's servIce between 1984 and 1989 for purposes of hIS current semonty ThIS gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed. Dated at Toronto Ontano thIS 1 ih day of October 2005 ~ .. an.