HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2570.Cassidy.06-05-08 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# 2005-2570
UNION# 2005-0337-0016
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(CassIdy) Union
- and -
The Crown In RIght of Ontano
(Mimstry of ChIldren and Youth ServIces) Employer
BEFORE Reva DevIns Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION Stephen GIles
Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE EMPLOYER Nicholas Sapp
Employee RelatIOns AdvIsor
Mimstry of ChIldren and Youth ServIces
HEARING May 2, 2006
2
DeCISIon
The partIes have agreed to an expedIted medIatIOn-arbItratIOn process to resolve gnevances at
the BrooksIde Youth Centre In Cobourg. Although a formal protocol has not been finalIzed, the
partIes have agreed to attempt to settle matters at medIatIOn and, If medIatIOn IS not successful, to
refer appropnate cases to expedIted arbItratIOn. The partIes specIfically agree that the Vice Chair
can hear the matter under ArtIcle 22 16 of the collectIve agreement and that the deCISIOn wIll be
WIthout preJudIce or precedent.
In thIS case, the gnevance asserts that CET officers were called In on August 3 2005 before the
Escort Officer lIst was exhausted. The gnevor seeks payment for a twelve hour overtIme shIft as
finanCIal compensatIOn.
The facts pertaInIng to thIS matter were not In dIspute On August 3 2005 escort duty was
aSSIgned to two qualIfied Youth ServIce Officers whIle they were workIng theIr regular shIft.
Two other officers, who were not on the Escort Officer lIst but who were qualIfied to perform
escort dutIes, were called In as replacements to assume the Escort Officers' regular dutIes When
the staff arrIved, the aSSIgned escort officers asked management If they could remaIn at the
faCIlIty and If the call In staff could escort the youth off sIte Management agreed to thIS request.
HavIng heard the submISSIOns of the partIes, I am satIsfied that even If the employer dId not
follow the escort call In polIcy the gnevor IS not entItled to an IndIVIdual remedy Escort officers
would have been called from the overtIme lIst. On the date In Issue, there were four qualIfied
officers on the overtIme lIst, however the gnevor was not among them. Therefore, I find that, In
any event, the gnevor would not have been called and IS not entItled to receIve payment for an
overtIme shIft.
The gnevance IS dIsmIssed.
Dated at Toronto thIS 8th day of May 2006
~~~
' --
~ '.
.";:!;. ". ~ I . 1 ~.
'" ''''__ -'.' ';, - :." '" - - tl
.- ~. -
R D --, ~~
eva eVInS
Vice-Chair