HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-0878.Archer et al.21-02-25 Decision
Crown Employees Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2018-0878; 2018-0879; 2018-0880; 2018-0881; 2018-0882; 2018-0883; 2018-0884; 2018-0885; 2018-
0886; 2018-0887; 2018-0888; 2018-0889; 2018-0890; 2018-0891; 2018-0892; 2018-0893; 2018-1845;
2018-1004
UNION# 2018-0234-0102; 2018-0234-0103; 2018-0234-0104; 2018-0234-0105; 2018-0234-0106; 2018-0234-
0107; 2018-0234-0108; 2018-0234-0109; 2018-0234-0110; 2018-0234-0111; 2018-0234-0112; 2018-0234-
0113; 2018-0234-0114; 2018-0234-0115; 2018-0234-0116; 2018-0234-0117; 2018-0234-0205;
2018-0234-0125
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Archer et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Daniel Harris Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Ed Holmes
Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Suneel Bahal
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Senior Counsel
HEARING December 17, 2020 and January 26,
2021
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The parties are agreed that Article 22.16 applies to this Order.
[2] The Union filed grievances on behalf of its members at Maplehurst Correctional
Centre claiming that the Employer violated the collective agreement in relation to
the administration of the meal allowance and overtime provisions. The parties
attended before me on December 17, 2020 and January 26, 2021. On those
dates the parties agreed to proceed with respect to one of the issues in dispute
and hold the other issues to be determined at a later hearing date. The claim at
issue is whether employees at Maplehurst, when assigned to escort duty, who
work through their meal break are entitled to compensation at straight time or at
time and one half (overtime rate) for this time worked. The Union claims that the
member is entitled to the overtime rate. The Employer took the position that the
memorandum dated May 17, 2013 issued by Ms. Cumming was a full response
to the Union’s claim. This decision addresses this one issue.
[3] Having heard the submissions of the parties and reviewed the collective
agreement, grievance forms and other documentation provided by the parties
including the memorandum issued by Ms. Cumming noted above, I find that the
employees are entitled to the overtime rate. For greater clarity, if an employee’s
schedule provides for an unpaid meal break and the employee is not provided
relief to take the meal break while on Community / hospital duty thereby resulting
in the employee working through the unpaid meal break in addition to also
working their scheduled shift hours then the officer is entitled to the overtime rate
- 3 -
for the normally unpaid meal break time. This is in addition to the one-hour
compensation in recognition for the missed meal break as provided for in
paragraph 6 of the “escort” Memorandum of Settlement dated July 11, 2004. As
noted in the memorandum issued by Ms. Cumming, “the rationale for this is that
anytime worked over and above the hours scheduled for a particular shift is
overtime and must be paid as such in accordance with the terms of the collective
agreement.”
[4] Accordingly, I grant the grievances and direct the Employer to pay the
Employees at the overtime rate for the applicable shifts. Pursuant to the parties’
request, I remit the issue of remedy for the individual grievors back to the parties
to resolve. Should the parties be unable to reach a resolution on the appropriate
remedy I remain seized of this matter.
[5] The other issues in dispute as raised by the grievances will proceed before me at
a later date.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 25th day of February, 2021.
“Daniel Harris”
________________________
Daniel Harris, Arbitrator