Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3206.Tak.06-07-25 Decision Commission de Crown Employees Grievance Settlement règlement des griefs Board des employés de la Couronne Suite 600 Bureau 600 180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2004-3206 UNION# 2004-0517-0104 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Tak) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFORE Vice-Chair Barry Stephens FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Pauline Jones Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services HEARING June 20, 2006. 2 Decision The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediati on-Arbitration Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to sa y that the parties have agreed to an ?True Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with submissions, which include the facts and authoritie s each relies upon. The process adopted by the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the medi ation phase, although the vice-chair has the discretion to request further information or doc umentation. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective ag reement, without reas ons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The grievance in this case relates to the grievor?s request for special and compassionate leave for a religious holiday on December 29, 2003. At th e time, the grievor was an unclassified employee, and the collective agreement provisions with respect to special and compassionate leave did not apply to unclassifi ed employees. The grievor, a lthough unclassified, was ?slotted? to fill in for a classified employee, and was scheduled to work December 29. As a result of the refusal to grant the leave, the grievor decided to work the day in question. The union argues that the effect of the former provision was that uncla ssified employees were denied the religious rights ava ilable to other employees. The employer responds that the collective agreement provision did not apply to unclassified employees at the time, and the grievor could have exercised other options in order to get the time off. 3 After reviewing the submissions of the parties a nd the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be upheld in part. The employer is ordered to pay the grievor an amount equal to four (4) hours pay at his rate in effect in December 2003. th Dated at Toronto, this 25 day of July, 2006. Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair