HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-3749.Balogh-Narhi.10-01-25 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#2007-3749, 2007-3750
UNION#2007-0252-0027, 2007-0252-0028
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Balogh/Narhi)Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
Employer
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
BEFOREFelicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONAnastasios Zafiriadis
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERGreg Gledhill
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARING
January 19, 2010.
-2-
Decision
[1]The Employer and the Union at the Niagara Detention Centre agreed to
participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance
with the negotiated Protocol. Most of the grievances were settled through
that process. However, a few remained unresolved and therefore require a
decision from this Board. The Protocol provides that decisions will be
issued within a relatively short period of time after the actual mediation
sessions and will be without reasons. Further, the decision is to be without
prejudice and precedent.
[2]Mr. Tim Balogh and Mr. Roger Narhi are Correctional Officers. On
November 7, 2007 both were called to work twelve hours of overtime in
accordance with the Overtime Protocol. By all accounts, the purpose of the
overtime was to relieve other Officers who were on Hospital Escort duty.
After approximately nine hours of the overtime the other Correctional
Officers returned to the Detention Centre because their Escort Duty had
concluded. As a result, the Operational Manager asked Mr. Balogh and Mr.
Narhi to go home. According to the documents provided, the ?HOT? hours
of the protocol were adjusted for each grievor to show that they just worked
nine hours of overtime.
[3]The Union asserted that the Employer was obliged to utilize and pay the two
grievors for the full period of the twelve hour overtime shift because that is
what they signed up for, were asked and agreed to do. Further, Mr. Balogh
stated that this was the very first time that he was sent home short of
completing an overtime shift that he had agreed to work.
-3-
[4]The Employer contended that it has the right to manage the work in
accordance with its Management?s Rights. When there was no longer an
operational need for the grievors to remain at work they can be sent home.
It was urged that there is nothing in the Provincial Overtime Protocol that
precludes the Employer from sending the grievors home at any point prior to
the completion of the full twelve hour shift.
[5]When asked to do so, the Employer provided documentation to show that it
is not unusual for Correctional Officers to be sent home short of a full
overtime shift.
[6]It is noted that there is nothing directly on point in the Protocol (July 7,
2006) that contemplates the cancellation of overtime. However, in the
?questions and answers? attached to the Protocol it is stated that ?if the
employer cancels an overtime shift? the hours do not count towards the
employee?s total hours.
[7]After considering the facts and submissions of the parties I am of the view
that these grievances must fail.
th
Dated at Toronto this 25 day of January 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair