HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-2449.Gareau.12-01-12 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#2010-0582-0054, 2011-0582-0050
IN THE MATTER OF
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Fa
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
GSB#2010-2449, 2011-2367
AN ARBITRATION
Under
B
Ontario Public Sployees Union
(Gareau) Union
- and -
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
ervice Em
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Tim Mulhall
O
G
ntario Public Serv
rievance Officer
s
s
Sia Romanidis
Ministry of Government Service
C
E
entre for Employee Relation
mployee Relations Advisor
HEARING December 13, 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] Conrad Gareau is a Correctional Officer who filed two grievances regarding
denial of three special leave requests for October 21, 2010, December 1, 2010 and
April 4, 2011. These days were requested to replace days that were previously
considered “denied absences”. He claimed his requests regarding the absences
were “mishandled” and discriminatory.
[3] During the period between January of 2010 and November of 2011, the
grievor had nineteen occasions of denied absences. That is to say, he called into
the workplace shortly before he was scheduled to report to work and declared that
he was unable to do so for reasons that had nothing to do with sick leave.
[4] It appears that in each case after he returned he asked for some substitution
for the denied absence. Indeed, some of these absences were changed to special
leaves days while others were substituted with vacation days or lieu days.
According to the Employer’s documents, in some instances the grievor did not
explain the need for absence beyond “family issues”. On other occasions little or
no information was noted as having been provided.
- 3 -
[5] I saw no evidence of discrimination or mishandling of requests in the
circumstances set out before me. Given the lack of information provided to the
Employer, I cannot fault the handling of these requests.
[6] It is trite to say that unless an employee is ill or otherwise excused from the
workplace by way of an approved leave of absence of some sort, the Employer is
entitled to expect that employees will work in accordance with the schedule.
[7] I must dismiss these grievances. As I discussed with the grievor during our
med/arb session, if he has need of some accommodation as the result of his family
status, he should make a formal request and meet with the Employer to discuss the
matter. It is not in his interest to rely upon requesting special and compassionate
time off with little or no notice.
Dated at Toronto this 12th day of January 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair