HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3323.Kujtan.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# 2004-3323
UNION# 2004-0234-0693
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(KuJtan) 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 any 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 credIt the gnevor Terry KUJtan, wIth all tIme spent travellIng outsIde of
hIS workIng hours The gnevor who lIves In Milton, was In Toronto In order to attend a five-day
traInIng course He was away from home for the five days and he was not credIted wIth the hours
he spent outsIde of work whIle In Toronto (and excludIng those hours referred to In ArtIcle 144)
that IS, those hours between 430 P m. and 11 pm.
ThIS matter has already been determIned In Re Pool and Ministry of Correctional
Services G S.B No 596/83 (RJ Roberts), August 15th 1984 Upon reVIeWIng the decIsIOn, the
umon conceded as much. ArtIcle 14 of the collectIve agreement speaks to "travellIng" and has
been determIned not to Incorporate tIme spent away from home but whIch IS otherwIse "free
tIme" As stated by Vice-Chair Roberts, "the word 'travellIng' solely refers to the act of
physIcally movIng from one place to another on government busIness" (at page 3) The claim
here IS for "free tIme" and the collectIve agreement provIdes no entItlement for such penods of
tIme
3
ThIS gnevance IS therefore dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto Ontano thIS 1 ih day of October 2005