HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1989.Cobb.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
Nj
~
Ontario
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2006-1989,2006-1994
UNION# 2006-0517-0030,2005-0517-0082
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
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
(Cobb)
- 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. 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 alleging that he should have been offered "double" overtime
opportunities on the same day (i.e. two shifts amounting to 16 hours) prior to unclassified
employees working such shifts. The union relies on the fact that the relevant overtime protocol
does not preclude double shifts, and, indeed, double shifts are contemplated in paragraph 9. The
protocol further provides that, once having accepted a shift, the employee's overtime sheet is to
be moved to the bottom of the call-in 'pile'. This does not mean, the union argues, that the
grievor is no longer eligible to be called in, only that he has a lower priority. However, that
lower priority always gives a classified employee the right to an overtime shift before an
unclassified employee.
3
The employer responds that it followed the practice of moving the grievor's sheet to the bottom
of the pile once he was offered the first shift, as set out in the protocol. It did not consider the
grievor eligible for another overtime shift on the same days. In addition, with respect to the 2005
grievance, the employer asserts that the grievor was booked to work 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and the
second shift was from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. This would have entailed cancelling or breaking up the
grievor's first shift, which the employer is not required to do.
DECISION
The 2006 grievance [GSB#2006-I989] is upheld. The employer is to pay the grievor 8 hours
overtime. The 2005 grievance [GSB#2006-I994] is dismissed. I will remain seized to deal with
any issues arising from the implementation of this award.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of January, 2007.
Barry