HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0981.Beek.06-05-23 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de Nj
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# 2005-0981
UNION# 2005-0517-0015
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Beek) Union
- and -
The Crown III RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Faith Crocker
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING May 17 2006
2
DeCISIon
The partIes have agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol It IS not necessary to
reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to an "True
MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn" process, whereIn each provIdes the vIce-chair wIth submIssIOns, whIch
Include the facts and authontIes each relIes upon. The process adopted by the partIes provIdes
for a canvaSSIng of the facts dunng the medIatIOn phase, although the vIce-chair has the
dIscretIOn to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. ArbItratIOn decIsIOns are Issued In
accordance wIth artIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement, wIthout reasons, and are wIthout
prejUdICe or precedent.
The gnevance In thIS case relates to Selena Beek. Ms Beek gneves the cancellatIOn of her ShIft
on January 8 2005 At the tIme Ms Beek was workIng an accommodated work schedule
InvolvIng three 12-hour consecutIve mght ShIfts each week. On her arnval at work for her three-
day seSSIOn on January 6 2005 Ms Beek was advIsed that the folloWIng week she would be
attendIng escort traInIng for five 8-hour days, from January 10 to 16 She accepted the necessIty
of attendIng the traInIng, and dId not object to the fact that It dId not fit wIth her medIcal
accommodatIOn. However she objected to the fact that she would only have one day to between
her regular mght ShIft and the day-tIme traInIng seSSIOn.
The employer cancelled Ms Beek's ShIft on January 8 In order to provIde her more tIme to
adjust to the change In hours However Ms Beek contInued to maIntaIn that she could not
attend the January 10 to 16 traInIng seSSIOn. As a result, her traInIng seSSIOn was cancelled, and
rescheduled In Apnl 2005 However the January 8 ShIft had already been cancelled and, as a
3
result, the gnevor lost 12 hours of pay that week. The gnevor seeks reImbursement for thIS lost
shIft.
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, I order the employer
to pay the gnevor SIX (6) hours pay
Dated at Toronto thIS 23rd day of May 2006
<