HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0755.Dunn.94-01-07
v ----
"00-'
:. ,'U '....., . ~
.' '.
~ - ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
~ ~ CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO
" ,"1-"
II' ": II" _..' GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
, . - .
, SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST TORONTO. ONTARIO. M5G 1Z8 SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST T,ORONTo, (ONTARIO) M5G 1Z8 BUREAU 2100 (416) 598-0688
....
0755/93
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
,/
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN'
OPSEU (Dunn)
Grievor
J
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Employer
Before J H Devlin, Vice Chairperson
For the Grievor: Jim Paul
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer. Percival Toop
Staff Relations Officer
Management Board Secretariat I
I
Hearing December 15, 1993
,i ." I
I
!
i
The Grievor, Bruce Dunn, alleges that o~ February 22,
1993, he was improperiy denied an overtime assignment contrary to
Article 13 2 1 of the collective agreement which pro~ides as
follows
13 2.1 In the assignment of overtime, the Employer agrees
to develop methods of distributing overtime at the
local workplace that are fair and equitable after
having ensured that all its operational
requirements are met.
The Grievor is employed as a psychiatric Nursing
Assistant ("PNA") at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre
On February 22nd, Mr. Marion, a Nurse 2 General at the Mental
Health Centre, escorted a patient to the hospital for a medical
assessment. The patient, who was suffering from deep vein
thrombosis, was subsequently admitted to the hospital and Mr
Marion was assigned to remain with the patient on an overtime
basis from 11:00 p.m. on February 22nd to 7 00 a m. 'on February
23rd. There was no dispute that both the Grievor and ~r. Marion
I
had advised the Emp~oyer that they were available to work
overtime during this period.
It was the position of the Union that there was no
necessity for the Employer to assign a nurse to escort duty on
\
the evening of February 22nd and that, as a result, the overtime
in question ought to have been assigned to the Grievor rather
than to Mr. Marion It was the position of the Employer that in
I
.
2
view of the patient'sconditioh, it was quite appropriate for the
Employer to, assign a nurse rather than a PNA and that the
!
requirement to distribute overtime in a fair and equitable manner
. . f .
arlses only after operatlonal requlrements have been met
The) evidence indicates that on the evening of February
22nd, ~enry Sa1ata~ a Shift Supervisor at the Mental Health
Centre, was advised by staff at the hospital that the patient's
condition was ~ife threatening. Moreover, given the patient's
I
I volatile behaviour, there was some real concern abOut the staff's
i
I
ability to effectively administer intravenous therapy As a
result, Mr Salata made the decision to assign a nurse rather
thana PNA to remain with the. patient at the hospital.
.
While it would appear that a nurse assigned in these
circumstances would be primarily involved jn behaviour management
(as the provision of nursing care is the responsibility of
hospital staff), in making the assignment, Mr. Salata took into
!
account the fact that a nurse would have knowledge of the
I. .
possible complications of intravenous therapy so h~ could alert
hospital staff in the event of a problem or take action in case
of an emergency Mr Salata's decision was clearly based on
operational requirements relating to the safety of the patient
and, in my view, no proper basis has been established to question
,
that decision.
~
-
J,
,
I
I 'to
't
3
In the result, I find that a violation of Article
13 2 1 has not been made out and, accordingly, the grievance of )
Mr Dunn is hereby dismissed
DATED AT TORONTO, this 7th day of January, 1994
\
r::
lWj~ \.{ ~~O
.' .
Vlce Chalrperson
\
,
) (
;
)
"
(
" J