HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-2258.Figliano.11-10-25 DecisionCommission 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#2010-2258
UNION#2010-0502-0052
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Figliano)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care)
Employer
BEFORELoretta Mikus Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONLesley Gilchrist
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYERKylie Humphreys
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Officer
HEARING
June 1, 2011.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The grievor, Rose Figliano, has been employed in the Correspondence Services Unit of
the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, as a Correspondence Clerk since 1974. The
JULHYDQFHDULVHVIURPWKH(PSOR\HU¶VGHFLVLRQLQ July of 2008 to set the hours of work for
all employees in the Unit from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30. She grieves that the Employer has
violated Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the collective agreement by imposing unreasonable
working arrangements on her that have caused her undue stress. She asks that her
previous hours of work from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. be reinstated.
[2]The parties referred this grievance to mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article
22.16 of the collective agreement. The parties have also agreed that I have the
jurisdiction to decide this matter and asked for a decision without prejudice and precedent
and without reasons.
[3]The grievor had been working the earlier hours in order to attend to a serious heath issue.
When the Employer decided to require all employees to work from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
she found herself in the position of asking for compassionate leave in order to care for her
brother who will be undergoing treatment for cancer. As his primary caregiver she will
be required to take him to his treatments and doctor appointments. If she was off work at
3:30 p.m. she could manage these appointments after work. By working until 4:30 p.m.
VKHZLOOEHXQDEOHWRJHWWRWKHGRFWRU¶VRIILFHand will be required to take time off work.
She likens her relationship to her brother as analogous us to a parent/child situation and
claims it is a breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code to refuse to accommodate her. In
order to meet her commitments the grievor has requested compassionate leave but really
only needs time to attend appointments.
[4]The Employer takes the position that the change in the hours of work was prompted by
valid business concerns. It receives numerous calls after 3 p.m. and requires all clerks to
be available to handle these calls. In the hour and a half that the grievor works before
8:30 a.m. there are no incoming calls and after 3:30 p.m. other clerks have to handle work
that should have been done by her.
[5]It also notes that when she asked for accommodation for personal reasons, the Employer
did what it could for her. This situation does not involve her but her brother and the
Employer is not required to accommodate her in these circumstances. It is prepared to
consider her request for time off on an individual basis.
- 3 -
[6]Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view this grievance should
EHGLVPLVVHG7KHJULHYRU¶VUHTXHVWIRUDFFRmmodation does not relate to her personal
need for accommodation but rather her brotheU¶VQHHGIRUKHUDVVLVWDQFH7KHUHLVQR
proof that there is no one else who could assist her with her caregiving responsibilities.
[7]The grievance is dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 25 day of October 2011.
Loretta Mikus, Vice-Chair