Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1099.Davidson.06-02-16 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# 2004-1099 UNION# 2004-0234-0337 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (DavIdson) 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 December 13 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 ArbItratIOn decIsIOns are Issued In accordance wIth artIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement and, therefore, are wIthout precedent. The gnevor was assIgned to work from 1500 to 2300 on Apnl 24 2004 Dunng her ShIft she was asked to stay untIl 0700 the next day She declIned, statIng that she had been up SInce 0730 that day and had to go home In order to care for her chIldren. Later the employer declared an emergency sItuatIOn and the gnevor was reqUIred to stay beyond her shIft. The gnevor managed to find chIld care for her chIldren overnIght. After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, I order the gnevor should be awarded $200 00 In damages 3 Dated at Toronto thIS 16th day of February 2006