HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-3769.Prince et al.22-01-24 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
GSB# 2017-3769
UNION# 2018-0247-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Prince et al) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE
Brian P. Sheehan
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Justin O’Gorman
Treasury Board Secretariat
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING January 18, 2022 (by video conference)
-2-
DECISION
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Brantford Jail agreed to participate in the
Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated
Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say, that
the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each
party provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out the facts and the
authorities they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance
with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is
without prejudice or precedent.
[2] This group grievance alleges a violation of the collective agreement and the
Employment Standards Act in relation to the purported failure of the Employer to
provide the grievors meal breaks and rest periods. Specifically, the grievance
states:
Our employer at the Brantford Jail has not provided us with meal
breaks during any shift we have worked over the course of our career
at the Brantford Jail. We have continued to work shifts without being
relieved of duties for eating/rest periods. Our employer has not given
us an eating/rest period of at least 30 minutes at intervals that would
result in us working not more than 5 (five) consecutive hours.
[3] The Employer asserts that the grievance should be dismissed on account of
timeliness. Specifically, the Employer relies on the fact that these grievances
would relate to the period when the Brantford Jail was in operation, prior to it being
ostensibly closed as of the end of 2017. Accordingly, given that the grievance was
not filed until February 15, 2018, it is well outside the time frames for filing a
grievance under the Collective Agreement.
[4] Upon reviewing the undisputed facts in this matter, it is my view that the
Employer’s position asserting that the grievances ought to be dismissed on
account of timeliness should be upheld. In this regard, it is noteworthy that there is
a complete absence of particulars regarding the specific dates that the grievors
have alleged that they were not provided a meal break or an appropriate rest
period. Additionally, given the timing of the closing of the Brantford Jail and the
filing date of the grievance, it is clear that the grievance was filed in an untimely
manner pursuant to Article 22 of the collective agreement. Additionally, there is no
basis for the exercise of the statutory discretion to provide relief against the failure
to file the grievance in a timely fashion.
-3-
[5] Against the above background, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24th day of January 2022.
“Brian P. Sheehan”
______________________
Brian P. Sheehan, Arbitrator