HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1739.Hayford.07-01-31 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# 2005-1739
UNION# 2004-0368-0155
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
(Hayford)
- 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
Karen Martin
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
December 14, 2006.
January 17,2007.
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 alleges that he was denied an overtime opportunity on February 6, 2004. The
employer produced the call-in records for February 5, which indicate that the grievor was called
five times during that evening, but that the line was busy each time. The records show the
correct phone number and, the employer argues, while it is possible that the wrong number might
have been called once, it is extremely unlikely that a wrong number leading to a busy signal
could have been called five times. Further, the employer asserts, there is no basis upon which to
conclude that the manager in question fabricated the call-in sheet, as suggested by the grievor.
The grievor states that he was at home during the evening of February 5, but received no calls.
He further states that his phone has a Bell answering service, which engages automatically when
the line is busy.
3
DECISION
The grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 31 st day of January, 2007.