HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-1143.Roy.06-07-25 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# 2000-1143
UNION# 2000-0517-0018
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Roy) Union
- and -
The Crown In 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 PaulIne Jones
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING June 20 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 a "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.
ThIS gnevance dates back to an IncIdent In August 2000 The gnevor was dIscIplIned for faIlIng
to complete assIgned work. On the day In questIOn, he had accepted an overtIme extensIOn. The
gnevor wIshed to take a meal break pnor to startIng the extensIOn, as he had not had a meal
break SInce the begInmng of hIS shIft. His supervIsor advIsed hIm to complete hIS assIgned task
before takIng hIS break. The gnevor expressed concern about these InstructIOns, and decIded to
"cancel" hIS overtIme extensIOn. The gnevor asserts the dIscIplIne was unwarranted, as he was
actIng based on health and safety concerns He also relIed on the fact that there IS a "pOIsoned"
workIng relatIOnshIp wIth thIS supervIsor that was reflected In a GSB decIsIOn Issued In October
1996 He also seeks compensatIOn for loss of the four-hour overtIme extensIOn.
The employer responds that the gnevor had opportumty for a meal break dunng hIS ShIft, statIng
that there was a penod of approxImately 1 and 1Iz hours when the gnevor had no assIgned dutIes
If he dId not take a meal dunng thIS tIme It was hIS own chOIce The gnevor was not demed a
3
break, rather he was advIsed to complete an assIgned duty before takIng a meal break. ThIS was
not a cIrcumstance In whIch the gnevor's health was threatened, and he should have followed the
pnncIple of "obey now gneve later" The gnevor was InsubordInate In faIlIng to complete hIS
assIgnment and In "cancellIng" the ShIft extensIOn.
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that the gnevance should be demed.
Dated ~t Toronto thIS 25th day of July 2006
<