Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1759.Fraser.07-02-02 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# 2006-1759 UNION# 2006-0368-0115 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 (Fraser) - 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 that he lost overtime opportunities due to the fact that his phone number was changed. He states that he advised a clerical employee of the change to his number on August 22, to be effective September 14, 2006. The employer produced documentation to show that the appropriate manager was notified of the change by email on September 12, but the number on the email was incorrect. The grievor was copied on the email, but he did not contact the employer to correct the number. The grievor claims that, but for the error caused by the internal communication, he would have been called in for overtime shifts, and claims 48 overtime hours pay, plus 36 hours in his bank. The employer responds that the grievor should have corrected the error upon reviewing the relevant email, and that his failure to do so absolves the employer of any responsibility for the error. 3 DECISION The grievance is upheld in part. The grievor is to receive 24 hours pay, at the overtime rate. I will remain seized with respect to any issues arising from the implementation of this award. Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of February, 2007.