HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1045.Davis.09-02-24 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#2008-1045, 2008-1046
UNION#2008-0634-0003, 2008-0634-0004
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Davis/Bedard)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Nimal Dissanayake
FOR THE UNION
Marion Melville
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Omar Shahab
Counsel
Ministry of Government Services
HEARING
February 18, 2009.
2
Decision
[1] Mr. Blair Bedard and Mr. Paul Davis, employed by the Ministry of Transportation as
Enforcement Officers, have filed individual grievances. Since no resolution was
forthcoming through mediation, both grievances were arbitrated together, pursuant to the
Mediation/Arbitration Procedure set out in article 22.16 of the collective agreement.
[2] Article UN 5.1 provides:
Shift schedules shall be posted not less than fifteen (15) days in advance and
there shall be no change in the schedule after it has been posted unless notice
is given to the employee one hundred and twenty (120) hours in advance of
the starting time of the shift as originally scheduled. If the employee
concerned is not notified one hundred and twenty (120) hours in advance he
or she shall be paid time and one half (1½) for the first eight (8) hours
worked on the changed shift provided that no premium shall be paid where
the change of schedule is caused by events beyond the ministry?s control.
[3] The only allegation in the Davis grievance is that the employer contravened article UN
5.1 by changing his posted shift schedule for the period January 14, 2008 to February 10,
2008 with less than 120 hours notice in advance. The Bedard grievance makes the same
allegation. On the basis of the facts presented, I am satisfied that notice in excess of 120
hours was received by both grievors by the employer?s e-mail notice dated January 28,
2008.
[4] Therefore, Mr. Davis?s grievance fails on that basis, and that aspect of Mr. Bedard?s
grievance also fails for the same reasons.
[5] Mr. Bedard, however, makes an additional claim in his grievance. The facts before me
thth
indicate that he was originally scheduled to work from February 6 to February 10,
2008 inclusive. While there is evidence that his original schedule was changed on paper
on two occasions, it is clear that he ultimately worked as per his original shift. In other
words, he did not have a shift change. The evidence also indicates that Mr. Bedard
would not have had two consecutive days off as required by article UN 3.1, had he
worked as per his schedule. However, the evidence before me is that when he raised that
3
issue, the employer gave him a day off (with pay) in order to be compliant with article
UN 3.1.
[6] In the result, Mr. Bedard in fact worked the schedule as originally posted. He also had
two consecutive days off as required by article UN 3.1.
[7] The Board understands Mr. Bedard?s frustration about the frequent changes to his shift
schedule. Frequent changes to an employee?s shift schedule results in uncertainty and
makes it very difficult for the employee to plan his personal life. Union counsel stated
that it is an on-going problem for employees with this employer. The Board urges the
employer to be sensitive to the employees? concerns. However, on the particular facts
before me, the employer could not be said to have contravened either article UN 3.1 or
UN 5.1. Therefore, Mr. Bedard?s grievance also fails.
[8] As a result both grievances are hereby dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 24 day of February 2009.
Nimal Dissanayake, Vice-Chair