HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3957.Stonehouse.06-10-12 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# 2004-3957
UNION# 2005-0248-0011
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Stonehouse)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Mary-Jo Knappett
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING May 24, 2006
SUBMISSIONS September 1, 2006.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. 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 ?True Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with
submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by
the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol.
Arbitration decisions are issued 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. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True
Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
At the beginning of the session on May 24, 2006, it was determined that the union had not
provided the employer with full or appropriate Appendix B?s, as required under the Protocol, and
as a result, the employer had been unable to prepare appropriate Appendix C?s. I met with the
representatives of the parties, and it was agreed the three-day mediation session would proceed.
In order to assist the parties, I advised that the union would be expected to prepare appropriate
Appendix B?s prior to the discussion of any specific case. This they did, and, in the process,
numerous grievances were withdrawn by the union. The employer then reviewed each grievance,
and mediation was attempted. There were a number of grievances referred to arbitration, and the
employer was provided with a full opportunity to submit formal Appendix C?s after the session.
3
FACTS
Following the 2002 strike the parties reached an agreement that employees on compressed work
weeks would be subject to the ?balancing? of hours. This meant that some employees would
have to ?repay? hours in order to have their hours reset in such a manner that the compressed
work week system could be applied. The grievor, however, retired from the Ministry shortly
after the strike, in June 2002, long before the balancing agreement was finalized by an order of
the GSB on March 4, 2004. On March 31, 2004, the grievor rejoined the Ministry as an
unclassified employee, and the employer subsequently deducted $291.12 from the grievor as part
of the balancing agreement. The employer argues that it acted in accordance with the
agreements between the parties, and the order of the GSB. The grievor asserts that any balancing
of his hours could only have been effected at the time of his retirement from the Ministry, but
that once he left, any such claim was extinguished. The fact that he was subsequently rehired as
a casual should not have served to revive this extinguished claim.
DECISION
The employer is ordered to pay the grievor $291.12. I remain seized to deal with any issues
arising from the implementation of this award.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 12 day of October, 2006.
________________________
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair