Loading...
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