HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2509.Union Grievance.06-12-08 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# 2005-2509
UNION# 2005-0252-0059
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
(Union Grievance)
- 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
Karen Martin
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
November 8,2008.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
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.
FACTS
The union filed a policy grIevance with respect to the Compressed Work Week (CWW)
agreement, alleging that the employer had been scheduling for several years on the basis of a
number of slots not supported by the CWW agreement. The employer responded that the
scheduling in question was implemented after reaching a verbal understanding with the union
executive at the time. The employer also claims that the union is estopped from pursing this
grievance, given that the changes were introduced most recently in 2002, yet the grievance was
not filed until November 2005. (Since the filing of the grievance, the parties have reached
mutual agreement on a new CWW, so the question of termination of the estoppel is not an issue.)
3
DECISION
In my view, the union is estopped from pursuing this grievance. The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of December, 2006.
Barry