HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-3436.Balazs.07-01-29 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# 2003-3436
UNION# 2003-0517-0065
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Balazs)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Pauline Jones
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
November 23, 2006.
January 12,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. Although the
Toronto Jail was not specifically covered by that protocol, at the outset of our session on
September 27, 2006, both the union and the employer agreed to follow the protocol as closely as
possible. 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
This case involves two claims for lost overtime opportunities, on December 8 and 9, 2003. The
employer concedes that the grievor is entitled to overtime for the shift missed on December 9.
With respect to December 8, the union asserts that the grievor was not called for a shift that was
assigned to an unclassified employee. It argues that the employer often fills the position in
question without regard to any specialized training, and that unclassified employees have no
right to overtime ahead of classified employees. The employer takes the position that an
employee must be qualified to fill the position for which overtime is required. In this instance,
3
the grievor was not eligible for the shift worked on December 8, because it was a position in A &
D which required specialized training, and the grievor did not have such training.
DECISION
After giving careful consideration to the facts and the submissions of the parties, I confirm the
agreement of the parties that the grievor is to be compensated for the overtime opportunity
missed on December 9,2003. The grievance with respect to December 8,2003 is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of January, 2007.
Barry