HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2450.Stark et al.07-06-25 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# 2006-2450, 2006-2451
UNION# 2006-0719-0022, 2006-0719-0023
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Stark et al.)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Stephen Giles and Scott Andrews
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Rena Khan and Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
June 21,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The Ministry and OPSEU have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006.
Although Kenora Jail is not one of the institutions covered by the protocol, the parties agreed on
June 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
The grievors were both working a shift from 0900 to 1700. The employer decided an employee
was required to cover the period from 0700 to 0900. As it turned out, the employee hired to
cover the period from 0700 to 0900 was unclassified. Although the two hours was not overtime
for the unclassified employee, the shift was later extended, and the unclassified employee
worked overtime hours later that day. The grievors assert that they should have been called in to
work the 0700 to 0900 hours, given that classified employees have preference over unclassified
employees for overtime assignments. The employer responds that, at the time the 0700 to 0900
work was assigned, the work in question was not overtime, it was not foreseen that the
3
unclassified employee would work overtime later that shift, and there was no violation of the
collective agreement or overtime procedures.
DECISION
The grievances are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of June, 2007.
Barry