Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0904.Dick.87-08-17File Nos. 904185 to 907/85 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BEFORE THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN: OPSEU (G. Dick) - and - Griever' THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE: FOR THE'GRIEVOR: FOR THE EMPLOYER: E. Slone Vice-Chairman I. Freedman Member L. Turtle Member R. Wells Counsel Gowling and Henderson Barristers and Solicitors J. Benedict nanager Staff Relations Ministry of Correctional Services HEARING: June 25, 1987 i ; / , DECISION Four grievances were filed arising out of the same incident. The Grievor is a Bailiff for the Ministry of Correctional Services. His job is to escort prisoners to.and between various correctional institutions in the Prov.ince. ._~ On June 13, 1985, the Grievor was handed a letter from the Employer informing him that he wa's being assigned to a 12 week training programme at Metro Toronto West Detention Centre, ('MTWDC") commencing the following Monday, June 17, 1985. This assignment was apparently in response to some perceived deficiencies arising out of certain complaints that had been made about the Grievor. ,,~ The principal grievance, complains that the letter of June 13, 1985 and the transfer to MTWDC constituted unjust disciplinary action. At the hearing, counsel for the Employer advised the Board that the Employer would not attempt to justify the disciplinary action, nor would it oppose an Order striking the letter from the Griever% file. Wee so order. The other three grievances deal with compensation issues. - 2 - We were advised at the outset of the hearing that the grievance seeking payment for the Grievor's travel time, was being withdrawn. The third grievance claims compensation for the additional.us~e of his own car that the Grievor was required to make as a result of the transfer to MTWDC. Under Article 22.1 of the Collective Agreement, the Grievor would be entitled to 27.5 cents per kilometer for up to 4000 kilometers driven using his own automobile on the Employer's business. The Grievor calculated that he was required to drive a total of some 3996 additional kilometers as a result of the transfer. The parties have u~ndertaken to finalize the $=ecise number of kilometers subject to this compensation. If for any reason they cannot do so, this Board will remain -seized of the matter and 'will reconvene to assist the parties. The last grievance with which we must deal states the issue thusly: "I grieve under Article 10.1 that I was not given proper notice of my change oft schedule - 120 hours. (I claim) payment at time and a half for the 8 hours I worked on Monday, June 17, 1985 at Metro Toronto West Detention Centre." ,. - 3 - It is not in dispute that the Grievor received only some 88 hours of notice that he was to report to the MTWDC the following Monday. Under Article 10.1 of the Collective Agreement, if the Employer makes a change in the "shift schedule" it must give the Employee 120 hours notice in advance of the starting time, otherwise the Employee is entitled to time and one-half for the first 8 hours worked on the changed shift. Counsel for the Grievor argued that a change in the place of work - namely MTWDC instead of the expected travel circuit - constituted a change in the shift schedu~le. We were informed that there is a schedule posted for a year in advance which enables the Grievor and other Bailiffs to know precisely which circuit they will be on in any given week. Some weeks they are entirely within the Metro Toronto environs.~ Other weeks they are on a circuit through Eastern, Western or Northern Ontario. However, no matter what the circuit, they are generally working an 8 hour day beginning anywhere from 7:00 o'clock to 8:30 in the morning. Counsel for the Employer argued'that a transfer from one locale to another did not amount,to a change in the shift schedule, since the Griever could still expect to be working roughly;the same hours. - 4 - In our view, when one reads Article 10 as a whole, in the context in which it is found in the Collective Agreement, one concludes that the parties intended the phrase "shift schedule" to refer to the times when an Employee is required to work. There is a good rationale for giving an employee ample notice of a change in the time that he will be required to work. Employees have a right to schedule their lives, knowing when they will be working and when they will be resting. If the Employer gives short notice of a change, the Employee is entitled to be compensated. However, in our view it stretches the language of Article 10 beyond its ordinary meaning to suggest that the Employer must give 120 hours notice of a change in the assigned tasks or locale of employment. It is inevitable that Employees will learn from time to time of such changes, and we are. not suggesting that the Employer ought not to give notice of such changes when practicable. However, we do not see any compelling reason to stretch the ordinary meaning of Article 10 to create a right of compensation in an Employee who has received less than 120 hours notice of such a change. If the parties wish to include such a right intheir Collective Agreement, they should do so explicitly. :#p,--, .~ ,- . . i We therefore hold that the shift schedule for the i. i. . . - 5 - Grievor was not changed, and he is accordingly not entitled to any compensation under Article 10 for the short notice of the reassignment. This grievance is therefore dismissed. DATED at Toronto this 17th day of August, 1987. I. FREEDMAN - MEMBER L.R. TURTLE - MEMBER