HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1947.Maddock.88-04-25IN THE MATTEK OF AN ARBITXATION
under
THE CXOWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEbENT BOARD
I Between:
OPSEU (B. Maddock)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community & Social Services)
H.J. &lisle
T. Traves
h. O'Toole
Vice Chairman
hrmber
&ember
For the Grievor:
C.M. Oassios
Counsr 1
Cowling & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
For the Employer:
Mark P. Alchuk
Solicitor
Legal Services Branch
Ministry of Community & Social Services
Grievor
Employer
DECISION ~~~~--------____
The grievor is a Residential Counsellor at the Rideau Regional
Centre for the Physically and Developmentally Handicapped.
Grievor's opening statement described the background for her
complaint. On May 18, 1907, management posted an offer for staff
to work at an associated camp forty miles away on scheduled days
Off. on May 22 the grievor was asked by her supervisor if she
would work her two scheduled days off during the week of June 1
and she agreed. The grievor later told her supervisor that she
was willing to do her regular twelve-hour shift each day,
implying that she wouldn't be staying overnight at the camp. The
supervisor said no to this arrangement and the grievor complains
that the supervisor's then refusal of the overtime was arbitrary
and violated her rights under the collective agreement. The
grievor complains that when management made an agreement to
provide overtime it had an obligation to carry out that agreement
reasonably. The grievor asks for money damages in an amount
equal to what she would have made if allowed to work or that she
be allowed to work the two shifts in the future.
Counsel for the Ministry maintains that even if we were to
accept grievor's version of what occurred the complaint is not
arbitrable. He relies on Chanaoor, 526/82 (Verity). In that
case there had been an agreement between the grievor and his
supervisor regarding the allocation of overtime. That agreement
2
was broken by the supervisor. The Board concluded:
Under the provisions of the Collective
Agreement, there is no specific Article
dealing with the assignment or distribution of overtime work . . . . ..We are of the .opinion that the breach of an oral agreement is
beyond the Board's jurisdiction and hence the matter is inarbitrable. . . ..The real basis of the Union's claim is a promise or oral undertaking which is not one embodied in or supported by the Collective Agreement.
The award in Chanooor clearly seems to cover our situation.
Counsel for the grievor seeks to distinguish Chansoor on the
basis that there the Board was unable to find an Article of the
Collective Agreement which was applicable. Counsel here argues
that Article 8.1 or Article 10.3 applies and that management must
act reasonably in their application. Article 8.1 provides:
There shall be two (2) consecutive days off which shall be referred to as scheduled days
Off,
except that days Off may be non- consecutive if agreed upon between the employee and the ministry.
We fail to see how this Article applies to our situation. The
agreement here was not to alter the consecutiveness of the
scheduled days off but rather to have the grievor work on both of
them.
Article 10.3 provides:
A shift may be changed without any premium or penalty if agreed upon between the employee and the ministry.
3
Again, we see no application here. A shift was not being
changed: the grievor was being asked to work an additional shift.
Accordingly the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 25th day of April, 1988.
v
-
R.J. Delisle, Vice-Chairman
T. Traves, Member
Mr. O'Toole, Member