Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2595.Leonard.07-11-29 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# 2005-2595,2006-0125,2006-0309,2006-0568, 2007-0250, 2007-0273, 2007-0296, 2007-1142 UNION# 2005-0234-0331,2006-0234-0101, 2006-0234-0112, 2006-0234-0141, 2007-0234-0025, 2007-0234-0048,2006-0234-0476,2007-0234-0141 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Leonard) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Marilyn A. Nairn Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Faith Crocker Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services HEARING November 15, 2007. 2 Decision This award flows from a mediation-arbitration seSSIOn held from November 13 to November 15, 2007, for bargaining unit employees at the Vanier Centre for Women. Going into the session, the parties agreed to utilize an expedited mediation-arbitration process to determine grievances. That process contemplates that the parties will attempt to resolve matters through mediation, failing which, they have agreed that the Vice-Chair will determine the matter based on the material presented by both parties during the mediation-expedited arbitration session, without the need for further formal proceedings. The parties are agreed that any award issued in this process does not constitute a precedent and is without prejudice to the positions of the parties in any other matter. As a result, they have also agreed that any award is to provide only brief reasons, if any. In doing so, the parties have agreed to a process that will also expedite the release of any award. In rare cases, if it becomes apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved are of a complex nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through 'regular' arbitration. Such was not the case here. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process. There are a total of eight grievances filed. A number of the grievances give rise to the same issue. In six of the grievances, the grievor, Blake Leonard, alleges that the employer has violated the collective agreement by having management perform bargaining unit work. The remaining two grievances essentially allege that the employer has denied the grievor overtime opportunities as a Correctional Officer. The grievor is employed as a Classification Officer. In that role, he works a day shift, Monday to Friday. The essence of the grievances relates to the fact that, primarily on weekends, the employer will have Operating Managers or Correctional Officers on site perform classification work if and when required to move inmates, without calling the grievor in to perform that work on an overtime basis. The grievances also assert that management is not complying with classification procedures by not first calling the Classification Officer prior to moving an inmate. There is nothing in the collective agreement, absent specific health and safety issues if any, prohibiting management from performing classification work as it sees fit on this as-needed basis. Nor was it asserted that Correctional 3 Officers are necessarily unqualified to perform, or are prohibited from performing this work on an as-needed basis. The employer has implemented a policy dated November 12, 2004 outlining a procedure to be utilized with respect to weekend classifications. It requires approval from the On-Call Administrator before a Classification Officer is to be called in. Should that approval not be forthcoming there is nothing in the collective agreement requiring the employer to utilize a Classification Officer on an overtime basis in order to complete this work. Because overtime opportunities are limited for a Classification Officer, the grievor also seeks access to overtime work as a Correctional Officer. At this time, it appears that the Ministry does not allow an employee to hold two classifications at the same time if one of those classifications is held on a full-time basis. Nothing was identified in the collective agreement as prohibiting this approach. In any event, the grievor has not performed the work of a Correctional Officer for a period of time greater than two years and therefore is not currently trained to perform Correctional Officer work. Having regard to all of the above, these grievances are hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 29th day of November, 2007.