Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-2811.Baker.05-10-17 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# 2004-2811 UNION# 2004-0234-0624 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Baker) Union - and - The Crown In RIght of Ontano (Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Manlyn A. Nairn 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 October 6 2005 2 DeCISIon The partIes have agreed to an expedIted medIatIOn-arbItratIOn process to determIne gnevances at the Maplehurst CorrectIOnal Complex and Vamer Centre for Women. It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to attempt to resolve matters at medIatIOn, faIlIng whIch, they have agreed to utIlIze an expedIted arbItratIOn process In preparatIOn, each party provIdes the Vice-Chair wIth wntten submIssIOns one week pnor to the heanng. Those submIssIOns Include a statement of the facts, as well as the argument (supported by authontIes) on whIch each party Intends to rely At the heanng, oral eVIdence IS not called, although the Vice-Chair may request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. In addItIOn, If It becomes apparent to eIther party or to the Vice-Chair that the Issues Involved In a partIcular case are of a complex 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 and at the heanng, and leads to a fair and efficIent adJudIcatIOn process In thIS case, the gnevance asserts that the employer IS In vIOlatIOn of the collectIve agreement by faIlIng to pay the gnevor Lon Baker overtIme pay for eIght hours The gnevor IS employed as an unclassIfied C02 at the Vamer Centre The overtIme protocol for Vamer contemplates that unclassIfied COs wIll receIve the opportumty to work 40 hours per week. On October 12, 2004 the gnevor had worked 32 hours towards her 40 hour week. A twelve hour ShIft became avaIlable that day The gnevor asserts that the employer should necessanly have splIt that work Into an eIght-hour ShIft and a four-hour extensIOn, assunng that the gnevor obtaIn her 40 hours as early In the week as possIble The gnevor dId obtaIn a ShIft the next day whIch enabled her to obtaIn 40 hours for that week. The gnevor's complaInt IS not that the employer faIled to provIde her wIth the opportumty of 40 hours of work that week. Her complaInt anses because had the employer assIgned the work earlIer In the week, the gnevor would have been entItled to overtIme for any 3 work assIgned later that week. The commItment In the protocol IS to offer unclassIfied staff the opportumty to work 40 hours per week (so that the week may be counted toward the unclassIfied CO's contmuous servIce date) The protocol does not appear to create a commItment by the employer to offer work to unclassIfied staff In such a way so as to maXImIze theIr overtIme opportumtIes In thIS case the gnevor was offered and dId work 40 hours In the week In questIOn. I am satIsfied that thIS meets the employer's oblIgatIOn In the CIrcumstances ThIS gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed. Dated at Toronto Ontano thIS 1 ih day of October 2005