HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3581.Butsch.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# 2005-3581
UNION# 2006-0368-0004
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
(Butsch)
- 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 is an RPN. On December 17, 2005 she had signed herself as available to work
overtime. Two RPN's called in sick. Shift extensions were offered to other employees to cover
some of the missed time but the full shifts were not replaced. The grievor argues that, as a result,
she lost an overtime opportunity.
The employer responds that one employee was assigned a one-hour extension, while another
received a two-hour extension. The employer concedes that no employee was assigned to cover
the remainder of the hours that would have been worked by the employees who called in sick.
The employer takes the position that the right to overtime distribution does not occur unless and
until management decides to create an overtime opportunity, and that the decision to create an
overtime opportunity is a matter of management discretion.
3
DECISION
After careful consideration of the facts and the submissions of the parties, I have determined that
the grievance should be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of February, 2007.