HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-1318.Bowes et al.04-08-16 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# 2003-1318
UNION# 2003-0438-0007
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Bowes et al ) Grievor
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Bram HerlIch Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Tim Mulhall
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Michael Bnscoe
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING August 11 2004
2
DeCISIon
ThIS was one of many cases dealt wIth by the partIes on three days of medIatIOn held on
August 10-12, 2004 to deal wIth outstandIng gnevances out of the Rideau CorrectIOnal Centre
Many of those cases were resolved by way of settlements or wIthdrawals Some may have to be
advanced to the Board for further medIatIOn and/or arbItratIOn.
There were, however a number of cases, lIke the Instant one, whIch the partIes agreed
ought to be dIsposed of through the medIatIOn/arbItratIOn procedure contemplated under ArtIcle
22 16 To that end, the partIes agreed that I ought to make a final determInatIOn on the basIs of
the InformatIOn provIded to me dunng the course of the medIatIOn process I also gave the partIes
a full opportumty to make submIssIOns whIch I consIdered pnor to ISSUIng any rulIng. To further
expedIte the process and In VIew of the lack of precedentIal value assocIated wIth thIS decIsIOn
under the terms of ArtIcle 22 16 7 the partIes asked that I not Include any reasons In thIS
decIsIOn.
ThIS IS a group gnevance In whIch the gnevors challenge the employer's dIscontInuance
of a practIce whereby employees were permItted to carry over all unused compensatIng and lIeu
tIme beyond March 31 folloWIng the calendar year In whIch they were earned.
ThIS change In practIce was prevIOusly the subJect of a polIcy gnevance The resolutIOn
of that gnevance essentIally provIded for an extended transItIOn penod before the new practIce
became firmly establIshed.
DespIte the resolutIOn of the pnor gnevance and the employer's apparent complIance
wIth the process contemplated thereIn, the Instant gnevors have agaIn challenged the change In
practIce The umon IndIcates that It has "no dIspute" wIth the employer In the context of the most
recent group gnevance
3
HavIng consIdered the submIssIOns of the partIes, the gnevance IS hereby dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 16th day of August 2004
6 ~"'(I ~L".,_,,,_.
. ,.. ,. .11, ..
Bram Her ich, Vice-Chairperson