HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3206.Tak.06-07-25 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-3206
UNION# 2004-0517-0104
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Tak)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE Vice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Pauline Jones
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
June 20, 2006.
2
Decision
The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediati on-Arbitration Protocol. It is not necessary to
reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to sa y that the parties have agreed to an ?True
Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with submissions, which
include the facts and authoritie s each relies upon. The process adopted by the parties provides
for a canvassing of the facts during the medi ation phase, although the vice-chair has the
discretion to request further information or doc umentation. Arbitration decisions are issued in
accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective ag reement, without reas ons, and are without
prejudice or precedent.
The grievance in this case relates to the grievor?s request for special and compassionate leave for
a religious holiday on December 29, 2003. At th e time, the grievor was an unclassified
employee, and the collective agreement provisions with respect to special and compassionate
leave did not apply to unclassifi ed employees. The grievor, a lthough unclassified, was ?slotted?
to fill in for a classified employee, and was scheduled to work December 29. As a result of the
refusal to grant the leave, the grievor decided to work the day in question.
The union argues that the effect of the former provision was that uncla ssified employees were
denied the religious rights ava ilable to other employees. The employer responds that the
collective agreement provision did not apply to unclassified employees at the time, and the
grievor could have exercised other options in order to get the time off.
3
After reviewing the submissions of the parties a nd the collective agreement, it is my conclusion
that the grievance should be upheld in part. The employer is ordered to pay the grievor an
amount equal to four (4) hours pay at his rate in effect in December 2003.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 25 day of July, 2006.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair