HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-3237.Stickle.07-03-05 Decision
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Commission de
reglement des griefs
des employes de la
Couronne
Nj
~
Ontario
Suite 600
180 Dundas Sl. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2002-3237
UNION# 2003-0229-0006
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Stickle)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair
BEFORE
Stephen Giles and Scott Andrews
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE UNION
Pauline Jones and Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
FOR THE EMPLOYER
February 19,20 & 21, 2007.
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
March 2, 2007.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The Ministry and OPSEU have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006.
Although OCI is not one of the institutions covered by the protocol, the parties agreed on
February 19,2007 to be bound by the terms of the protocol for this session. 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
In 1991, the parties entered into a compressed workweek agreement (CWW A) covering Units 1
through 6, as well as Control and A&D. The agreement provided in Paragraph 8.2:
"Either party may, on written notice of 90 days to the other party, terminate this
agreement. "
In May 2002, Unit 5 was closed, and in January 2003, Unit 4 was closed. The parties are agreed
that both closures occurred with less than 90 days notice. The grievor worked in Unit 6 during
the relevant period. He asserts that the closure of Units 4 and 5 resulted in a reduction of
available overtime opportunities in Unit 6. He also alleges that the closure of the units amounts
3
to a termination of the CWW A, and that, since proper notice was not provided, he is entitled to
compensation for lost overtime opportunities for the 90-day periods following the closures.
The employer responds that the CWW A did not provide a guarantee of continued work, let alone
overtime work, in any of the units, but was intended to regulate how any work in such units
would be scheduled.
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of March, 2007.
Barry