HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-2453.Burke.05-04-04 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de ~~
Grievance Settlement reglement des griefs
Board des employes de la
Couronne
~-,...
Suite 600 Bureau 600 Ontario
180 Dundas Sl. West 180 rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Telec. (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2002-2453
UNION# 2002-0234-0138
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Burke) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Mike Bnscoe
Semor Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING March 10 2005
2
DeCISIon
The gnevor George Burke, gneves that hIS semonty IS not properly calculated, as It does not
Include credIt for the penod from 1989 to 1991 when he dId not work for the Mimstry
Mr Burke argues that hIS absence from 1989 to 1991 was as a result of mantal and famIly status
Issues, and that If hIS needs had been properly accommodated, he would not have had to leave
the Mimstry at the tIme The umon asserts that, pnor to leavIng the Mimstry In 1989 the gnevor
had conversatIOns wIth hIS supervIsors dunng whIch he expressed a need for short term leave
that would allow hIm to deal wIth hIS mantal and famIly Issues The umon further asserts that,
had such a temporary leave been granted, there would have been no need for the gnevor to resIgn
hIS employment.
The employer responds that It was entItled to rely on the gnevor's letter of resIgnatIOn, whIch
was clear and uneqUIvocal In addItIOn, the employer had made reasonable efforts, but was
unable to contact the former supervIsors the gnevor alleged he had spoken to about a temporary
leave Thus, there was no eVIdence, other than the gnevor's assertIOns, that Mr Burke had
advIsed hIS employer that he reqUIred accommodatIOn, that he had requested a temporary leave
and that such a leave had been demed.
The partIes agreed that thIS matter was to be dealt wIth under the expedIted arbItratIOn procedure
set out In Part 7 of the Med-Arb Protocol between them sIgned on February 4 200S The partIes
have also requested that I provIde a decIsIOn wIthout reasons
3
HavIng carefully revIewed the eVIdence presented and the submIssIons of the partIes, It IS my
VIew that the gnevor's semonty has been properly calculated In accordance wIth the terms of the
collectIve agreement. As a result, the gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 4th day of Apnl, 2005