HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-2812.Kranstz.06-02-21 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# 2004-2812
UNION# 2004-0234-0625
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Kranstz) 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 alleges that he was not offered the opportumty to work overtIme on several ShIftS In
September and October 2004 In all cases, he asserts that unclassIfied employees were hIred to
work non-overtIme ShIfts on the dates In questIOn. The employer responds that the overtIme
protocol contemplates that unclassIfied employees wIth less then 40 hours In a work week may
be assIgned a ShIft before a regular employee IS offered overtIme, and that no overtIme
opportumty IS avaIlable In such CIrcumstances
3
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, It IS my conclusIOn
that there IS no eVIdence that the employer vIOlated the overtIme protocol or the collectIve
agreement. As a result, the gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 21st day of February 2006