HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-3316.Marlow.13-03-21 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#2011-3316
UNION#2011-0252-0020
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Marlow) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Tim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Greg Gledhill
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Staff Relations Officer
HEARING March 6 & 7, 2013.
-2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Niagara Detention Centre agreed to participate in the
Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Some of
the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few grievances 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] On October 8, 2011, Ms. Judy Marlow requested three compassionate leave days in order
to attend at a family vacation that was scheduled for early December. She made clear in her
request the extenuating circumstances surrounding her request.
[3] The Employer denied her request shortly thereafter saying that her request “did not meet
the requirements” needed for approval.
[4] The grievor was not satisfied with this response and asked for a special meeting with the
Superintendent to discuss her request. That meeting was held on October 25, 2011 and shortly
thereafter the Superintendent informed the grievor that he had considered her circumstances, the
collective agreement provision and spoken with human resource consultants. He upheld the
original decision to grant the leave request without pay.
[5] The Employer submitted that this request was denied after taking various considerations
into account, not the least of which was the period of time between the granting of the request
and the departure date. The Employer was of the view that the grievor has sufficient time to
make various other arrangements to allow her to attend a family matter that was not of an
emergent nature.
[6] While I have much sympathy for the reasons surrounding the grievor’s request, I am not
convinced that in this case the Employer can be found to have violated the collective agreement.
There was no evidence or arbitrariness or bad faith. Further, the Employer met with the grievor
to fully discuss the reasons for her request. As stated by Vice Chair Johnson in Re The Crown
-3 -
in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health and Long Term Care) & OPSEU – Thurman
GSB#0698/01, (Johnson), I am reluctant to question the correctness of this decision having
found that the Employer met “certain minimum standards of justice”.
[7] While I may well have come to a different decision regarding the granting of the request,
I cannot find that the Employer has violated the collective agreement.
[8] Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
Dated in Toronto this 21st day of March 2013.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice Chair