HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-2811.Baker.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 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-2811
UNION# 2004-0234-0624
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Baker) 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 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 pay the gnevor Lon Baker overtIme pay for eIght hours The gnevor IS
employed as an unclassIfied C02 at the Vamer Centre The overtIme protocol for Vamer
contemplates that unclassIfied COs wIll receIve the opportumty to work 40 hours per week.
On October 12, 2004 the gnevor had worked 32 hours towards her 40 hour week. A
twelve hour ShIft became avaIlable that day The gnevor asserts that the employer should
necessanly have splIt that work Into an eIght-hour ShIft and a four-hour extensIOn, assunng that
the gnevor obtaIn her 40 hours as early In the week as possIble The gnevor dId obtaIn a ShIft the
next day whIch enabled her to obtaIn 40 hours for that week.
The gnevor's complaInt IS not that the employer faIled to provIde her wIth the
opportumty of 40 hours of work that week. Her complaInt anses because had the employer
assIgned the work earlIer In the week, the gnevor would have been entItled to overtIme for any
3
work assIgned later that week. The commItment In the protocol IS to offer unclassIfied staff the
opportumty to work 40 hours per week (so that the week may be counted toward the unclassIfied
CO's contmuous servIce date) The protocol does not appear to create a commItment by the
employer to offer work to unclassIfied staff In such a way so as to maXImIze theIr overtIme
opportumtIes In thIS case the gnevor was offered and dId work 40 hours In the week In
questIOn. I am satIsfied that thIS meets the employer's oblIgatIOn In the CIrcumstances
ThIS gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto Ontano thIS 1 ih day of October 2005