Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3566.Vieselmeyer.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# 2005-3566 UNION# 2006-0517-0001 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Vieselmeyer) 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 a claim th at the grievor lost the ability to accumulate Compensating Time Off (CTO) between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006. The circumstances surrounding the grievance are not in dispute. The part ies signed a memorandum of agreement on May 18, 2000, in se ttlement of a policy grievance, that the past practice with respect to the accumulation of CTO would conti nue. Late in 2005, the employer advised the union and its members that, effective January 1, 2006, employees would not be permitted to accumulate CTO. This announcement led to further discussions between the parties, leading to a new agreement permitting the accumulation of up to 120 hours with other restrictions. The new agreement came into effect on April 1, 2006. The grievor submits that, between January 1 and March 31, 2006, the employer should have been bound by the terms of the May 2000 memorandum of agreement, and that is was improper for the employer to unilaterally alter the terms of that agreement without doing so in negotiation 3 with the union. Evidence was provided from the employer?s records indica ting that the grievor could have accumulated a total of 232 hours of CTO. The grievor stated that he would have used this time in order to schedule time off to assist his spouse in caring for thei r toddler triplets. The employer responds that, since mutual agreement is required with respect to the accumulation of CTO, as per the collective agreement, the em ployer has a right to withdraw such mutual agreement upon proper notice. The employer also acknowledged that, had it not been able to bring the old practice to an end, it would have b een more difficult to get the union to agree to change the practice. The employer also argued th at the grievor has not lost any pay, simply he lost the option of banking some of his time as CTO. On this poi nt, the grievor as serts that the grievor has seldom made use of CTO, and has almo st always asked to have his time cashed out. After reviewing the submissions of the parties a nd the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be allo wed in part. The employer is or dered to grant the grievor 40 hours compensating time, which will be added to the grievor?s time bank. th Dated at Toronto, this 25 day of July, 2006. Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair