HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3566.Vieselmeyer.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# 2005-3566
UNION# 2006-0517-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Vieselmeyer)
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 a claim th at the grievor lost the ability to accumulate
Compensating Time Off (CTO) between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006. The
circumstances surrounding the grievance are not in dispute. The part ies signed a memorandum
of agreement on May 18, 2000, in se ttlement of a policy grievance, that the past practice with
respect to the accumulation of CTO would conti nue. Late in 2005, the employer advised the
union and its members that, effective January 1, 2006, employees would not be permitted to
accumulate CTO. This announcement led to further discussions between the parties, leading to a
new agreement permitting the accumulation of up to 120 hours with other restrictions. The new
agreement came into effect on April 1, 2006.
The grievor submits that, between January 1 and March 31, 2006, the employer should have been
bound by the terms of the May 2000 memorandum of agreement, and that is was improper for
the employer to unilaterally alter the terms of that agreement without doing so in negotiation
3
with the union. Evidence was provided from the employer?s records indica ting that the grievor
could have accumulated a total of 232 hours of CTO. The grievor stated that he would have used
this time in order to schedule time off to assist his spouse in caring for thei r toddler triplets. The
employer responds that, since mutual agreement is required with respect to the accumulation of
CTO, as per the collective agreement, the em ployer has a right to withdraw such mutual
agreement upon proper notice. The employer also acknowledged that, had it not been able to
bring the old practice to an end, it would have b een more difficult to get the union to agree to
change the practice. The employer also argued th at the grievor has not lost any pay, simply he
lost the option of banking some of his time as CTO. On this poi nt, the grievor as serts that the
grievor has seldom made use of CTO, and has almo st always asked to have his time cashed out.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties a nd the collective agreement, it is my conclusion
that the grievance should be allo wed in part. The employer is or dered to grant the grievor 40
hours compensating time, which will be added to the grievor?s time bank.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 25 day of July, 2006.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair