HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0759.Pierrepoint.06-02-01 Decision
Crown Employees Commission de Nj
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# 2003-0759
UNION# 2003-0234-0149
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(PIerrepOInt) 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 Rena Khan
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING November 9 2005
2
DeCISIon
The partIes agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol for the Maplehurst
CorrectIOnal Complex. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say
that the partIes have agreed to an expedIted process whereIn each party provIdes the vIce-chair
wIth wntten submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes the party Intends to rely upon,
one week pnor to the heanng. At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the vIce-chair
IS permItted to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent
to the vIce-chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex or sIgmficant
nature, the case may be taken out of the expedIted process and processed through "regular"
arbItratIOn. Although IndIVIdual gnevors often wIsh to provIde oral eVIdence at arbItratIOn, the
process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a thorough canvaSSIng of the facts pnor to the
heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adJudIcatIOn process
The gnevor was an unclassIfied employee who has SInce left the employ of the Mimstry He
states that hIS contract of employment contaIned a provIsIOn that stIpulated he was to receIve
"posItIve pay" of 40 hours per week. He asserts that means that he was entItled to a guarantee of
40 hours per week, and there were at least SIX week dunng hIS employment when he dId not
receIve 40 hours work or 40 hours pay Employer counsel responds that the reference to
"posItIve pay" does not guarantee 40 hours per week, but merely reflects the long-standIng
practIce that unclassIfied employees are elIgIble for the opportumty to work up to 40 hours of
straight tIme per pay week.
3
After havIng revIewed the collectIVe agreement, and the submIssIons of the partIes It IS my
conclusIOn that there IS no vIOlatIon of the collectIve agreement, and that the employer's hmng
practIces WIth respect to the gnevor were consIstent WIth the terms of the collectIve agreement as
well as wIth the clear practIce between the partIes As a result the gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 1st day of February 2006