Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0748.Ashley.07-01-30 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# 2006-0748 UNION# 2006-0234-0159 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 (Ashley) - 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 Pauline Jones Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services December 6,2006. December 19, 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 is an unclassified employee. During the week of April 17,2006 he had accumulated 36 hours by Friday. He called in on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, but was not offered any further shifts. There were several employees who were offered four-hour overtime shifts on the days in question. Step 1 of the overtime protocol indicates that hours are to be offered as straight time to casual employees prior to being offered as overtime to other employees. The employer accepts that the language of the overtime protocol could be clearer, but asserts that it has a discretion with respect to offering shifts as straight time to unclassified employees, or overtime to another employee. It points out that subsequent revisions to the overtime protocol have made it clear that such work "may" be offered as straight time hours to unclassified employees prior to being offered as overtime to other employees. 3 DECISION The grievance is upheld. The grievor should be paid an additional four hours for the week of April 17, 2006. He should also be credited with 40 hours work for the week, and receive all other benefits flowing therefrom. I will remain seized to deal with any issues arising from the implementation of this award. Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of January, 2007. Barry