HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-3194.Luther et al.07-03-29 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# 2006-3194,2006-3195
UNION# 2006-0108-0036,2006-0108-0037
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Luther et al.)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Stephen Giles and Marie Thomson
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Rena Khan and Gary Wylie
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
March 15,2007
March 20,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. Although the Elgin-
Middlesex Detention Centre is not formally covered by the protocol, the parties agreed at the
outset that the protocol would apply to the session held March 13 - 15,2007. 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
These grievances relate to availability for work for the July 1, 2006 statutory holiday. Both
grievors had submitted their availability for work on that date but had not checked off the box
indicating availability for partial shifts. The grievors assert that they should have been called, in
spite of their failure to mark off the "partial" shift, because, according to Article COR13.I, they
would have received double time for full hours regardless of how many hours they actually
worked. In other words, any employees getting called in or scheduled for that day would have
received double time for an entire shift, and it should not matter what shift was being filled or
which type of shifts an employees signed up for, as all were being paid the same. Both grievors
3
allege that they should have been called in for partial shifts for July 1, 2006, and seek full
payment for the shifts in question.
The employer takes the position that the best way to protect the integrity of the overtime and
call-in system is to enforce the process according to clear rules that all employees know in
advance. This is beneficial to the employer but it is also of benefit to all employees, who enjoy
the certainty created by a system that is transparent, clear, and enforceable. The sign-up system
is based on the employee's availability to work specific shits and types of shifts. It is not based
on pay, as the grievors suggest it should have been with respect to this specific day. In this
instance, the grievors had it within their control to select partial shifts. They did not do so, and
they were not considered for partial shifts.
DECISION
The grievances are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2007.
Barry