HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2760.Union Grievance.06-02-07 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# 2005-2760
UNION# 2005-0234-0078
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Umon Gnevance) 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 January 27 2006
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 umon gneved after a CorrectIOnal Officer worked an extended ShIft of 18 hours, exceedIng
the 16-hour maXImum agreed between the partIes The 16-hour maXImum can only be exceeded
In emergency cIrcumstances, but no emergency was declared dunng the ShIft In questIOn.
The employer responds that It had expenenced dIfficulty fillIng the ShIft due to the number of
employees on sIck leave and a hospItal escort.
3
After reVIeWIng the submIssIOns of the partIes and the collectIve agreement, I find that the
employer breached the 16-hour maXImum In a non-emergency sItuatIOn, and I so declare The
umon dId not seek any relIef beyond thIS declaratIOn.
Dated at Toronto thIS 2ih day of February 2006
I