HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-2623.Johnston.06-12-18 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
Nj
~
Ontario
GSB# 2004-2623
UNION# 2004-0248-0117
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Johnston)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Marilyn Nairn
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Greg Gledhill
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
December 7,2006.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to determine
grievances at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre. It is not necessary to reproduce the
entire protocol here. Suffice to say that the parties have agreed to attempt to resolve matters at
mediation, failing which, they have agreed to utilize an expedited arbitration process. In addition, if
it becomes apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved in a particular
case are of a complex nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed
through 'regular' arbitration. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at
arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts prior
to, and at the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that I exercise my jurisdiction to decide this
matter, and requested that I issue a decision, without reasons.
This grievance claims payment for the lost opportunity of an overtime shift on March 14,
2004. When the grievor checked, she saw that her name was not on the overtime sheet for March.
The union asserted that she had provided availability for March, April and May, 2004. The
employer confirmed that the grievor had submitted availability for April and May but had no
record of receiving the March availability. When the issue was raised, the grievor was allowed to
submit her remaining March availability and did receive overtime shifts for the latter part of the
month. It is incumbent on the employee to ensure that the Scheduling Manager or other assigned
manager receives the employee's availability.
Having carefully reviewed the evidence presented and the submissions of the parties, I find
that there has been no violation of the collective agreement. This grievance is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of December 2006.