HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0688.Lippington.10-10-29 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV
Settlement Board
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
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 7pO
Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
GSB#2010-0688, 2010-0690
UNION#2010-0119-0002, 2010-0119-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Lippington)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREBarry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONScott Andrews, Anastasios Zafiriadis,
Laurie Sabourin
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Sean Milloy, Victoria Fichtenbaum
Ministry of Government Services
Employee Relations Division
Staff Relations Officers
HEARINGJune 15, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not
necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to a
³7UXH0HGLDWLRQ$UELWUDWLRQ´SURFHVVZKHUHLQeach provides the Vice-Chair with submissions,
which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision is issued in accordance
with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and is without prejudice or
precedent.
[2]The grievances relate to claims for two 12-hour shifts, one in September 2009 and the
second in late January 2010. The grievor alleges she was improperly bypassed for both shifts.
The employer responds that the shifts in question were assigned to unclassified employees who
had not yet attained the forty hours in the weeks in question, and that the assignment of hours in
such circumstances is not governed by the collective agreement or the HPRO protocol. The
employer further argues that the fact that the employer used the HPRO system in order to find
employees to whom the work could be assigned does not give rise to an obligation to assign the
work in any particular order.
[3]After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my
conclusion that the grievances should be dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 29 day of October 2010.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair