HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2882.Simpraga.07-11-28 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# 2006-2882
UNION# 2007-0135-0002
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
(Simpraga)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Reva Devins
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Karen Martin, Brian Scott
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
November 20,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
The parties have agreed to use the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol to resolve
grievances at the Windsor Jail. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. It is
sufficient to state that the parties have agreed that this matter is to be decided as a "True
Mediation-Arbitration". The Vice-Chair, based on the evidence provided during the mediation
session, is required to immediately resolve a grievance following a failed mediation. The Vice-
Chair's decision will be without reasons, without precedent and prejudice and issued within 15
days.
In this case, the grievance asserts that the grievor was improperly denied holiday pay for work
performed on November 12, 2006. The Grievor was scheduled for a shift that commenced at
2300 hours on November 11 and ended at 0700 hours on November 12. In accordance with
Article COR4.1, the entire shift was paid the applicable holiday rate.
The Grievor also agreed to work from 0700 to 1500 on November 12 and was paid at the
applicable overtime rate. The Grievor seeks payment for this shift at the holiday rate as an
unbroken extension of the shift which began no November 11. The Employer disagreed that this
constitutes an 'extension' of the grievor's shift. In the Employer's submission, the additional
hours were part of a regularly scheduled shift which began on November 12 and for which the
Grievor is only entitled to overtime, not holiday pay.
Having considered the submissions of the parties I have determined that there has been no
violation of the Collective Agreement. The Grievor was paid at the applicable holiday rate for
the shift that commenced on November 11. He was not entitled to receive holiday pay for the
second shift that commenced on November 12. The grievance is dismissed.
~. Dated at T~ day of November 2007
~ - . - _..~
-. ~.
".. - I
~-;:
. i' .
,- ,: . .
" "::-_ iii> "- ; ~~
~ '" - , " - .'- ,- " ~
Reva Devins
Vice-Chair