HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0217.Preyma.08-03-20 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2004-0217
UNION# 2004-0517-0027
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Preyma)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Marilyn A. Nairn
FOR THE UNION Stephen Giles
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Pauline Jones
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
February 20, 2008.
2
Decision
This decision flows from a mediation-arbitration session held on February 19 and 20,
2008, for bargaining unit employees at the Metro West Detention Centre. Going into the session,
there was agreement that the parties were to utilize a process reflected in a mediation-arbitration
protocol negotiated between them. That protocol contemplates the use of an expedited
mediation-arbitration process to determine grievances brought forward during that session. The
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 protocol stipulates and the parties are agreed that any award
issued in this process will be without reasons, does not constitute a precedent, and is without
prejudice to the positions of the parties in any other matter. In rare cases, if it becomes apparent
to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved are of a nature that cannot
appropriately be dealt with through this expedited process, the case may be 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.
This grievance asserted that the employer had incorrectly calculated the length of the
grievor?s continuous service. Having regard to the material submitted by the parties, I find that
Mark Preyma?s continuous service date is appropriately determined to be November 9, 1999.
These proceedings are hereby concluded.
th
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 20 day of March, 2008.
Marilyn A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.