Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0981.Beek.06-05-23 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# 2005-0981 UNION# 2005-0517-0015 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon (Beek) Union - and - The Crown III RIght of Ontano (Mimstry ofCommumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces) Employer BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews Gnevance Officer Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon FOR THE EMPLOYER Faith Crocker Staff RelatIOns Officer Mimstry of Commumty Safety and CorrectIOnal ServIces HEARING May 17 2006 2 DeCISIon The partIes have agreed to an ExpedIted MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn Protocol It IS not necessary to reproduce the entIre Protocol here Suffice It to say that the partIes have agreed to an "True MedIatIOn-ArbItratIOn" process, whereIn each provIdes the vIce-chair wIth submIssIOns, whIch Include the facts and authontIes each relIes upon. The process adopted by the partIes provIdes for a canvaSSIng of the facts dunng the medIatIOn phase, although the vIce-chair has the dIscretIOn to request further InformatIOn or documentatIOn. ArbItratIOn decIsIOns are Issued In accordance wIth artIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement, wIthout reasons, and are wIthout prejUdICe or precedent. The gnevance In thIS case relates to Selena Beek. Ms Beek gneves the cancellatIOn of her ShIft on January 8 2005 At the tIme Ms Beek was workIng an accommodated work schedule InvolvIng three 12-hour consecutIve mght ShIfts each week. On her arnval at work for her three- day seSSIOn on January 6 2005 Ms Beek was advIsed that the folloWIng week she would be attendIng escort traInIng for five 8-hour days, from January 10 to 16 She accepted the necessIty of attendIng the traInIng, and dId not object to the fact that It dId not fit wIth her medIcal accommodatIOn. However she objected to the fact that she would only have one day to between her regular mght ShIft and the day-tIme traInIng seSSIOn. The employer cancelled Ms Beek's ShIft on January 8 In order to provIde her more tIme to adjust to the change In hours However Ms Beek contInued to maIntaIn that she could not attend the January 10 to 16 traInIng seSSIOn. As a result, her traInIng seSSIOn was cancelled, and rescheduled In Apnl 2005 However the January 8 ShIft had already been cancelled and, as a 3 result, the gnevor lost 12 hours of pay that week. The gnevor seeks reImbursement for thIS lost shIft. After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, I order the employer to pay the gnevor SIX (6) hours pay Dated at Toronto thIS 23rd day of May 2006 <