HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-2613.Thomas.12-01-05 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2011-0582-0055
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2011-2613
B
Ontario Public ployees Union
(Thom Union
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
Service Em
as)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Laura Josephson
Ontario Public Serv
Grievance Officer
s
s
Sia Romanidis
Ministry of Government Service
Centre for Employee Relation
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING December 12, 2011.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Toronto East 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] Matthew Thomas is a nurse who filed a grievance alleging that he was entitled
to be called to work overtime on Thanksgiving Monday, 2011. He was
schedule to, and did work 1500 hours to 2300 hours. The Employer needed an
employee to work 0800 hours to 1600 hours. The grievor was of the view that
because the person who actually worked the shift at issue did not report until
0830 hours, the shift needed became a “part” shift. He claimed that he was
entitled to that work because he had indicated on HPRO that he was willing to
work “part” shifts.
[3] Put simply, there is no violation of the collective agreement or the overtime
protocol. The grievor could not perform the work at issue because the shift
need by the Employer did not finish until 1600 hours and the grievor was
already scheduled to begin his work at 1500 hours. Accordingly, the grievor
could not meet the Employer’s requirements. There is no obligation upon the
Employer to alter its staffing needs to facilitate the grievor’s availability for
overtime work.
- 3 -
[4] The grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of January 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair