HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3734.Hanske et al.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
Nj
~
Ontario
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2005-3734,2005-3735
UNION# 2006-0368-0009,2006-0368-0010
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
(Hanske et al.)
- 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 grievors allege that the shift schedule for the recreation officers was not properly posted. A
new schedule was posted, but the employees had to choose their preferred slots on the rotation.
They claim this resulted in their schedules not having been posted within the required time limits
in the collective agreement. They also claim that all subsequent shifts were inappropriately
scheduled as a result of the original error, and are all subject to payment at one and one half
times the regular hourly rate. The employer accepts that the posting procedure may have
resulted in the original posting being a maximum of two days short. However, the employer
does not accept there was any subsequent impact to schedules, since all employees are aware of,
and have been working according to the new schedule for months.
3
DECISION
After considering the submissions of the parties and the terms of the collective agreement, it is
my view that the grievors are entitled to 8 hours pay. I will remain seized to deal with any issues
arising from the implementation of this decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of February, 2007.