HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2228.Birkhof.07-02-01 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# 2005-2228
UNION# 2005-0368-0095
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
(Birkhof)
- 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 claims a missed overtime opportunity on October 8, 2005. The employer alleges
that a call was made to both of the grievor's numbers on October 8 to offer the grievor a shift.
There was no answer on one line, but a message was left on the grievor's cell. The grievor did
not call back. The employer produced phone records showing that a connection was made to the
grievor's cell phone at 8:44 p.m. on October 7. The grievor argues that the employer should have
left a message at the first number, which is his home number. He further claims that his home
number is equipped with Bell call answering, and it is not possible that there would be no
answer. The union argues that employer's failure to leave a message at the home number means
that the employer failed to take all reasonable steps to advise the grievor of the overtime
opportunity, and he should be compensated appropriately.
3
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of February, 2007.