HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1412.Best et al.04-08-16 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# 2004-1412
UNION# 2003-0438-0036
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Best et al ) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Bram HerlIch Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Tim Mulhall
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Michael Bnscoe
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING August 12,2004
2
DeCISIon
ThIS was one of many cases dealt wIth by the partIes on three days of medIatIOn held on
August 10-12, 2004 to deal wIth outstandIng gnevances out of the Rideau CorrectIOnal Centre
Many of those cases were resolved by way of settlements or wIthdrawals Some may have to be
advanced to the Board for further medIatIOn and/or arbItratIOn.
There were, however a number of cases, lIke the Instant one, whIch the partIes agreed
ought to be dIsposed of through the medIatIOn/arbItratIOn procedure contemplated under ArtIcle
22 16 To that end, the partIes agreed that I ought to make a final determInatIOn on the basIs of
the InformatIOn provIded to me dunng the course of the medIatIOn process I also gave the partIes
a full opportumty to make submIssIOns whIch I consIdered pnor to ISSUIng any rulIng. To further
expedIte the process and In VIew of the lack of precedentIal value assocIated wIth thIS decIsIOn
under the terms of ArtIcle 22 16 7 the partIes asked that I not Include any reasons In thIS
decIsIOn.
The gnevors are all unclassIfied correctIOnal officers ("COs") who were placed In "slots"
on the schedule, I e scheduled to work hours In the same fashIOn as full-tIme classIfied COs
They gneve that they were not paid overtIme dunng the weeks whIch, as part of the compressed
work week schedule, they routInely worked 60 hours
The umon does not dIspute that (pursuant to ArtIcle 31A16 1 of the collectIve
agreement) ArtIcle 10 1 applIes to unclassIfied employees Further neIther was It dIsputed that
there was a compressed work week In place on agreement of the partIes whIch precluded the
payment of overtIme except where employees worked In excess of theIr scheduled hours (whIch,
In some weeks, apparently mIght have regularly been as many as 60 hours)
3
HavIng regard to the posItIOns of the partIes, thIS gnevance IS hereby dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 16th day of August 2004
~t'~ ~L~~~~l: -
ranI" er icli, lee-Chairperson