HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1068.Longstreet et al.06-01-31 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# 2004-1068 2004-1069 2004-1070 2004-1071 2004-1072,2004-1073 2004-1074
2004-1903 2004-2288 2004-2289 2004-2290 2004-22912004-2292,2004-2293
UNION# 2004-0234-0307 2004-0234-0308 2004-0234-0309 2004-0234-0310 2004-0234-0311
2004-0234-0312,2004-0234-0313 2004-0234-0474 2004-0234-0541 2004-0234-0542,
2004-0234-0543 2004-0234-0544 2004-0234-0545 2004-0234-0546
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Longstreet et al ) 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 Mary-Jo Knappett
Staff RelatIOns Officer
Mimstry of Commumty Safety and
CorrectIOnal ServIces
HEARING July 22, 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
A senes of IndIVIdual and group gnevances were filed regardIng the assIgnment of work on
statutory holIdays The gnevors allege that the manner In whIch the employer assIgned statutory
holIday work vIOlated the gnevors' nghts to the fair and eqUItable dIstnbutIOn of statutory
holIday work opportumtIes The employer responds that the collectIve agreement provIdes for
the fair and eqUItable dIstnbutIOn of overtIme, but that It does not speak to the dIstnbutIOn of
statutory holIday work opportumtIes The employer relIes on GSB precedents, IncludIng the
decIsIOn In Gillies, 031688 (Samuels) In whIch the vIce-chair made the folloWIng comments
"ThIS Board has said often that an employee IS not entItled to work on a statutory
holIday The Employer may assIgn whomever It wIshes to work the holIday See
for example, Ferguson, 7882 (JollIffe) McCormick 38681 (Barton) and Birse
33883 (Samuels) The gnevors have no contractual nght to work statutory
holIdays under the collectIve agreement, and they were not laid off"
3
HavIng carefully revIewed the eVIdence presented and the submIssIOns of the partIes, It IS my
VIew that there IS no eVIdence of a breach of the collectIve agreement. As a result, the gnevances
are dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 31 st day of January 2006