HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0316.Pyper.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# 2006-0316
UNION# 2006-0517-0009
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Pyper) 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 Faith Crocker
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 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 relates to a claim by the gnevor that her retroactIve pay was delayed from
September to December The gnevor alleges the delay caused a financIal loss of approXImately
$60 resultIng from a returned cheque and Interest costs Incurred. The umon asserts that the
unusual delay reqUIres the gnevor be compensated for the loss
The employer responds that the gnevor's "retro" cheque was delayed In part by the fact that the
gnevor ran out of credIts whIle on sIck leave, and was off payroll for a penod of tIme In
addItIOn, the first cheque Issued for her retroactIve pay was wntten for the wrong amount.
3
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that the gnevance should be upheld In part. The employer IS ordered to pay the gnevor the sum
of $3000
Dated Cl;t Toropto thIS 25th day of July 2006
<