HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2019.Cosby.07-01-18 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
Nj
~
Ontario
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2006-2019,2006-2319
UNION# 2004-0252-0044,2004-0252-0045
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
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
(Cosby)
- 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
Corporate Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
November 8,2006.
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 grievor filed two grievances. In the first he claims a lost overtime shift for January 14,
2004. The grievor states that he was called about the overtime shift while he was in a training
course. He was not able to call back for approximately 15 minutes, at which point the shift had
been given away. The grievor points out that the shift was given to another employee in the
same course who happened to have a cell phone. The employer responds that it cannot be held
responsible for the reasons why the grievor was unable to return the call, and the fact that another
employee in the course had a cell phone and took the shift are circumstances the employer does
not control.
3
The second grievance deals with a claim for mileage to travel to a training course. The grievor
states that he was offered a drive in an employer vehicle to the training session that was being
held in Brantford. However, he declined the offer, as he intended to drive with a co-worker.
Later, he discovered that the co-worker had been assigned a shift that would keep him at work
until 11 :30 p.m. He did not want to wait so late to travel to the course, and he asked for a drive
in the employer's vehicle, but, by that time, the vehicle was no longer available. He drove
himself, and now claims compensation for the mileage.
DECISION
The grievance with respect to the overtime claim is dismissed. The grievance with respect to the
mileage claim is upheld and the employer is directed to pay the grievor reasonable mileage
expenses for travel to Brantford and back. I will remain seized to deal with any issues arising
from the implementation of this award.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of January, 2007.
Barry