HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-3612.Butsch.12-05-25 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# 2012-0368-0017
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
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2011-3612
AN ARBITRATION
Under
B
Ontario Public Sployees Union
(Butsch) Union
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
ervice Em
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
ice Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Scott Andrews
Ontario Public Serv
Grievance Officer
ces
ations Advisor
Sean Milloy
Ministry of Government Servi
Employee Relations Division
Employee Rel
HEARING May 3, 2012
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional 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] Ms. Autumn Butsch filed a grievance alleging she should have been paid
call back pay for her actions on January 6, 2012. She stated that she had
worked night shift and after she got up from sleeping she learned that she
had a message to call her supervisor at work.
[3] She returned the call and spoke to her manager. She was told that she had
been called earlier to ask if she had gone home that morning with keys. By
the time this conversation was held, her manager had located the missing
keys.
[4] It is for this effort that Ms. Butsch asserts she should receive four hours of
pay at the rate of time and one half. The Employer contended that this is not
“work” as that is set out in the call back provisions of the Collective
Agreement.
- 3 -
[5] I agree with the Employer. In my view, the communication that took place
involving the grievor on January 6, 2012 was not “work”. The Employer
initially called because it was thought that the grievor might have
inadvertently left the jail with keys. It goes without saying that loss of keys
is a significant issue in a correctional facility and it is not surprising that the
grievor might have received such a call if the keys cannot be located.
[6] However, a short telephone discussion such as this is not “work” as
considered by the call back provisions of the Collective Agreement. She
was not asked to perform any of her normal job functions or to give advice.
[7] The grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto this 25th day of May 2012.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair