HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1122.Sirrs.17-04-05 Decision
Crown 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#2012-1122
UNION#2012-0368-0076
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Sirs) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer
BEFORE Brian P. Sheehan Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Dan Sidsworth
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Laura McCready
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre For Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING March 28, 2017
- 2 -
Decision
[1] The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional Centre (CECC)
agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with
the negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to
say, that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each
party provides the Vice-Chair with their submissions setting out the facts and the
authorities they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with
the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is without
prejudice or precedent.
[2] This Award concerns a grievance filed by the grievor asserting that the Employer
improperly and arbitrarily deducted monies from his pay.
[3] The grievor is employed as a Correctional Officer 2 and has been an employee
of the Employer for over twenty-six years.
[4] It is not disputed that on January 15, 2012, the grievor failed to sign in and sign
out as required on the sign-in/sign-out form, with respect to the hours he worked that
day. Notwithstanding that fact, the grievor was initially paid for those hours of work.
[5] Further to the grievor not signing in and signing out as required, HPRO (the
Employer’s payroll software program) subsequently generated an “absence report”
indicating that the grievor was absent from work on January 15, 2012. Accordingly, the
monetary value of the pay the grievor received for the hours he worked on January 15,
2012 was deducted from the grievor’s pay in an ensuing pay period.
- 3 -
[6] Upon becoming aware of the deduction to his pay, the grievor contacted a payroll
clerk in administration at CECC and advised her of the error that had been made
regarding his pay for January 15, 2012. Ultimately, the grievor contacted the General
Duty Manager and attended the CECC on a day off from work, in an effort to straighten
out the issue regarding the deduction of monies from his pay.
[7] Shortly thereafter, an adjustment to the grievor’s pay was made reimbursing him
for the monies that had been deducted from his pay.
[8] It is the position of the Union and the grievor that, notwithstanding the failure of
the grievor to sign in and out on January 15, 2012, there were a number of ways for the
Employer to verify that the grievor was, in fact, at work that day. For example, it was
suggested that it was the responsibility of the grievor’s supervisor to review and “sign
off” on the sign-in/sign-out form; and, if that had been done properly, then the grievor’s
attendance at work on that day would have been affirmed. It was further asserted that
the Employer should contact an employee to verify he/she was absent on the day in
question prior to unilaterally deducting monies from his/her pay.
[9] The grievor seeks to be credited with a vacation day in relation to the efforts he
expended to have his pay correctly adjusted.
[10] The grievor’s sense of frustration in having the monies in question unilaterally
deducted from his pay is, at one level, appreciated. There is, however, no basis to
conclude that a violation of the collective agreement arose in the circumstances. That
conclusion is reached, firstly and fore mostly, because the undisputed precipitating
event that led to the dispute regarding the grievor’s pay arose out of his own failure to fill
out the sign-in/sign-out sheet as required. In this regard, it could be suggested that it is
- 4 -
a bit much for the grievor to be claiming relief, considering the fact that the deduction of
the monies in question arose from his own failure to follow the proper protocol.
Moreover, and just as importantly, the Employer acted quickly to rectify the situation
upon the “error” in the grievor’s pay being brought to its attention.
[11] Accordingly, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 5th day of April 2017.
Brian P. Sheehan, Vice-Chair