HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1868.Martin.12-12-14 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB#2012-1868
UNION#2012-0234-0096
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Martin) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Tim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Swey Vishwanath
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Staff Relations Officer
HEARING December 13, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not
necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to
a “True Mediation-Arbitration” process, wherein each provides the Vice-Chair with
submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision is issued
in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and is
without prejudice or precedent.
[2] The grievance relates to a claim for overtime with respect to a shift on July 8, 2012. The
grievor states that she called in the day before the shift to advise that she would be two hours
late. She was told that she could not cancel part of a shift, only the entire shift, and the shift
was transferred to another employee. Shortly thereafter, the grievor became aware that an
employee had called into work just prior to the commencement of an overtime shift to advise
that he had been delayed by an unforeseen circumstance, and was making an effort to get to the
workplace as soon as possible. The employer used another employee to cover the first couple
of hours of the shift until the late employee arrived to complete the remainder of the shift.
[3] Given these circumstances, the grievor alleges she has been unfairly treated and seeks
compensation for the shift she lost. The employer responds that the two circumstances were
different, that an employee does not have a right to accept part of an overtime shift, and that it
is a matter of employer discretion how to respond to employees who are unavoidably late.
- 3 -
[4] After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my
conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 14th day of December 2012.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair