Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1099.Jones.94-09-12 ~^ ~ \ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE \, 'CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO II II GRIEVANCE CpMMISSION DE C SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT - BOARD DES GRIEFS I 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO ONTARIO, MSG lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (4 i6) 326- 1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100 TORONTO (ONTARIO) MSG lZ8 FACSIMILE'TELECOPIE (416) 326- 1396 ,-;~ 1099/93, 1641/93 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD ~ETWEEN: - OPSEU (D JONES) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional services) Employer Before: J.H. Devlin, Vice Chairperson For the Grievor L. Yearwood Grievance Officer \ Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: M. Mously Grievance & Negotiation Officer Correctional Services Division Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional services_ Hearing: August 25, 1994 ~- -- - -- .. \. /1 -- There are two grievances before-~he Board, the first of which concerns a notation on the Grievor's performance appraisal '" to the effect that,-he was unavailabl~ for work on a number of occasions in January and February, 1993. The secon~ grievance "- involves a claim for standby or on-call pay as the Grievor maintains that he is continuously required. to be available to report for work The Grievor is employed on contract as a casual Correctional Officer at the Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre and has been so employed since April, 1988. As a casual ) Correctional Officer, the Grievor is scheduled to work on an .. irregular basis-to a maximum of 40 hours per week to provide relief for Correctional Officers who are absent. I~ this regard, the evidence indicates that work assignments are offered by telephone and that approximately 1/2 of the shifts available to "- casual Correctional Officers are offered one week in advance. The remaining shifts are offered on short notice. It was the evidence of Daniel Urquhart, the Institutional Training Officer, that while there is an expectation that casual Correctional Officers will generally be available for work, they are not required to remain by the telephone or advise the Employer of their whereabouts when they are not at work. They are also not required to accept a -~ , ' , $' , 2 -, particular assignment and no record is kept in the event that an assignment is refused. As well, a procedure has been implemented whereby casual Correctional Officers may advise the Employer in advance if they are not available on specified days in which case, they will not contacted during this period. According to Mr Urquhart, many Correctional Officers including bhe Grievor, r '\ have utilized this procedure. Nevertheless, the Grievor testified that he understood that he was required to be available at all times to report for work. He based this understanding on a memorandum to casual Correctional Officers from the Senior Assistant Superintendent i which stressed the importance of them being available to cover weekend call-in shifts. In addition, the Grievor relied on the fact that tpe Employer made a notation on his performance appraisal concerning his unavailability on a number 9f days in January and February, 1993 The Grievor acknowledged that he did not advise the Employer in advance that he would not be available during this period i Dealing firstly with the matter of the Grievor's performance appraisal, there was no suggestion that the notation was disciplinary and, in my view, it was not unreasonable for the Employer to draw to the Grievor's attention its concern with regard to his general availability in circumstances where he could not be contacted for at least 15 days in a 2-month period - - - ~ ~ ~ y 3 - and gave no advance notice to the Employer that he would be unavailable for work during this time. Moreover, neither the notation on the Grievor's J performance appraisal nor the memorandum from the Assistant Superintendent lead me to conclude th~t the Grievor is entitled \ to standby or on-call pay. While these documents raise concerns with regard to general availability, the evidence indicates that the Grievor is not required to accept a particular work assignment and need not remain by the telephone or advise the Employer of his whereabouts when he is not at work. There is ./ also a procedure whereby the Grievor and other casual Correctional Officers may advise the Employer in advance in the - event that they are not available on specified days In these circumstances, I cannot conclude that the Grievor is required to be available for immediate return to work or that he is required to respond within a reasonable period to a request for recall to the workplace or the performance of other work. In the result, -- '" the claim for standby or on-dall pay under Articles 15 and 16 of the collective agreement is denied as is the grievance in connection with the performance appraisal. r DATED AT TORONTO, this 12th day of Sept~mber, 1994. I ~ ~ jCl.u.~ H, , ~ Vice Chairperson - ( -'