HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-1808.Terfloth.09-06-17 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#2008-1808
UNION#2008-0225-0011
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Terfloth)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREDeborah J. D. Leighton Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONScott Andrews
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERKaren Martin
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARINGMay 19, 2009.
-2-
Decision
[1]Mr. Marcos Terfloth, a cook 3 at Walkerton Jail, grieved on August 11, 2008, that
management violated U.N. 2 by requiring the cooks to work a compressed work week
when there was no written CWW agreement in place. The grievor seeks overtime for
every hour worked in excess of the eight hour shift required under Schedule 4. However,
the essence of his grievance is that he does not want to work on a compressed work week
and he takes the position that he is entitled to work 8 hour shifts, if he chooses to do so.
[2]The employer denied that it had violated the collective agreement and relied on a
longstanding agreement between the parties, going back at least ten years that the cooks
work a compressed work week. The practice of working on a compressed schedule was
longstanding when the grievor, who was previously at the Niagara Jail, won the cook 3
position at Walkerton. The employer took the position that the practice created an
estoppel, which governed the outcome in this case. Further, since the grievance and
because neither party could find a written CWW agreement, the parties signed a fresh
formal agreement on October 9, 2008. Of the three cooks in the kitchen, two want the
CWW and only the grievor does not want to work a compressed work week.
[3]The parties referred this grievance to mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article
22.16 of the collective agreement. At the outset of the hearing the parties agreed that I
had the jurisdiction to deal with this matter. They asked that I issue a decision without
precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons in accord with the provisions for
expedited hearings under Article 22.16.
[4]Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, as well as the jurisprudence
of the Board, I hereby dismiss this grievance.
th
Dated at Toronto this 17 day of June 2009.
Deborah J.D. Leighton, Vice-Chair