HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0344.McConnell.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#2016-0344
UNION#2016-0368-0058
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(McConnell) 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 Sia Romanidis
Treasury Board Secretariat
Centre For Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING March 29, 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
violated the collective agreement by not offering an overtime opportunity to the
maintenance staff at CECC.
[3] The grievor is employed as a Maintenance Mechanic and has been an employee
of the Employer for approximately twenty-five years.
[4] There are lockers at the CECC for the correctional staff to store personal items.
Earlier this year, for variety of reasons, including that some employees had laid claim to
more than one locker, the Employer initiated a process of re-assigning those lockers to
employees. As part of that process employees were given an opportunity to empty their
current lockers.
[5] Over the course of the weekend of March 5, and 6, 2016 the Employer sought to
clean out those lockers that had been not yet emptied. Specifically, an Operational
Manager, in the presence of two members of the Local Union Executive, cut off the lock
- 3 -
and emptied the contents of any non-vacated locker. The two Local Union Executive
members were paid the applicable overtime rate for the hours they worked on those two
days.
[6] It is the position of the grievor, and the Union, that the task of removing the locks
from the lockers was work of the maintenance staff and that a maintenance employee
should been provided the opportunity to perform that work as overtime. In relation to this
point, it is asserted that the maintenance staff have the responsibility of maintaining and
repairing the locks on the various doors in the facility.
[7] The Union, however, did acknowledge that in the past if a particular locker
needed to be open (i.e. in the case of an employee who had been terminated or
resigned) a member of the Employer’s security staff, in the presence of a Local Union
Executive member, would cut the lock an empty the contents of the locker.
[8] Based on the submitted facts there exists no basis to find that the Employer
violated the collective agreement by not assigning the work in question to a member of
the maintenance staff as overtime. Unless constrained or restricted by collective
agreement language the Employer has the inherent right to decide the nature of a
particular work assignment, and who should perform that work assignment. Further to
this point, there is no provision in the collective agreement mandating that work in
question either be performed by a member of the bargaining unit or more particularly by
a member of the maintenance staff. Moreover, the past practice of the parties does not
support the position of the Union; as generally when the Employer needed to be
emptied a locker it was a member of the Employer’s security staff who performed that
task of cutting the lock.
- 4 -
[9] Accordingly the grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 5th day of April 2017.
Brian P. Sheehan, Vice-Chair