HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2211.Courville.06-12-19 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# 2005-2211
UNION# 2005-0234-0241
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
(Courville)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Stephen Giles
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Rena Khan
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
December 13, 2005.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol for the Maplehurst
Correctional Complex. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say
that the parties have agreed to an expedited process wherein each party provides the vice-chair
with written submissions, which include the facts and authorities the party intends to rely upon,
one week prior to the hearing. At the hearing, oral evidence is not called, although the vice-chair
is permitted to request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent
to the vice-chair that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex or significant
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 the
hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process. Arbitration decisions are issued in
accordance with article 22.16 of the collective agreement and, therefore, are without precedent.
FACTS
The grievor worked as a classified C02 from 1975 to 1988. In 1988 she resigned her
employment in order to raise a family. She continued to work as an unclassified employee from
1988 to 2003. In 2003 she was rolled over to classified status. Her service was adjusted for the
period of unclassified employment, such that her CSD now dates to 1997. The grievor asserts
that all of her employment back to 1975 should be fully credited in calculating her CSD.
The employer responds that Art. 18.4 of the collective agreement stipulates as follows:
18.4 Continuous service shall be deemed to have terminated if:
(a) an employee resigns or retires
3
DECISION
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion
that the grievance should be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of December, 2006.