HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3636.Fitzpatrick.06-10-11 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# 2004-3636
UNION# 2004-0530-0014
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Fitzpatrick)
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 Karen Martin & Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
September 28, 2006.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. Although the
Toronto Jail was not specifically covered by that protocol, at the outset of our session on
September 27, 2006, both the union and the employer agr eed to follow the protocol as closely as
possible. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of
the Protocol, the parties have agreed to a ?Tru e Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each
provides the vice-chair with s ubmissions, which include the fact s and authorities each relies
upon. The process adopted by the parties provid es for a canvassing of the facts during the
mediation phase under the Protocol. Arbitration decisions are issu ed in accordance with Article
22.16 of the collective agreement, without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The
parties were unable to resolve this matter in mediation. A ccordingly, the matter has been
referred to me as a True Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
The grievor seeks reimbursement under Article 6.4 of the collective agreement for attending an
interview on August 19, 2004. Article 6.4 reads as follows:
6.4 An applicant who is invited to attend an interview within the civil service shall be granted
time off with no loss of pay and with no loss of credits to attend the interview, provided that
the time off does not unduly interfere with operating requirements.
The grievor had been advised in early August that the interview was to be held at 14:00 on
August 19, at CECC, which is lo cated in Lindsay. On August 4, she asked the scheduling
manager at the Toronto Jail to book her off for th e day so that she could attend the interview.
She states that she was advised at the time that this would not be a pr oblem. On August 18, the
day before the interview, she received a call from the employer advising her that she was
3
expected to report to work at 06:00 on August 19, but that she would be relieved at 14:00 in
order to allow her to attend the interview. Cl early, this would not have allowed the grievor
sufficient time to attend the in terview. After further discussi on, the grievor was told she would
be relived at 12:00. The grievor advised that sh e did not want to repor t for work at all.
Ultimately, the grievor did not report to work. She states that she was paid only six hours for the
day, and that six hours were de ducted from other credits (banke d time, vacation time, etc) in
order to cover the other six hours.
The grievor takes the position that she should have been relieved for the entire day, as she had
originally requested. She also grieves that sh e was not paid mileage. The employer takes the
position that six hours was sufficient for the grievor to attend the interview. No evidence was
offered with respect to any interference with operating requirements.
DECISION
After considering the facts and the submissions of the par ties, I find that, in the circumstances of
this case, the grievor should have been granted the entire shift as originally requested. The
grievor is entitled to payment for mileage and to the reinstatement of any credits used to cover
part of her shift on August 19, 20 04. I note that the employer believes that, although such a
deduction was to be made, there was no subsequent adjustment, and the grievor received her full
regular pay for the day. The employer is ordered to provide the union with full documentation
for the pay periods subsequent to August 19, 2004, so that the union and grievor can verify no
deduction was made to cover part of the shift. If it is determined that any such deduction was
made, the credit is to be fully adjusted in the gr ievor?s favour. I will remain seized to deal with
any issues arising from the implementation of this award.
4
th
Dated at Toronto, this 11 day of October, 2006.
________________________
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair