Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3957.Stonehouse.06-10-12 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# 2004-3957 UNION# 2005-0248-0011 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Stonehouse) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer BEFOREVice-Chair Barry Stephens FOR THE UNION Scott Andrews Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Mary-Jo Knappett Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services HEARING May 24, 2006 SUBMISSIONS September 1, 2006. 2 Decision INTRODUCTION The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that, as part of the Protocol, the parties have agreed to a ?True Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase under the Protocol. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this matter in mediation. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me as a True Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol. At the beginning of the session on May 24, 2006, it was determined that the union had not provided the employer with full or appropriate Appendix B?s, as required under the Protocol, and as a result, the employer had been unable to prepare appropriate Appendix C?s. I met with the representatives of the parties, and it was agreed the three-day mediation session would proceed. In order to assist the parties, I advised that the union would be expected to prepare appropriate Appendix B?s prior to the discussion of any specific case. This they did, and, in the process, numerous grievances were withdrawn by the union. The employer then reviewed each grievance, and mediation was attempted. There were a number of grievances referred to arbitration, and the employer was provided with a full opportunity to submit formal Appendix C?s after the session. 3 FACTS Following the 2002 strike the parties reached an agreement that employees on compressed work weeks would be subject to the ?balancing? of hours. This meant that some employees would have to ?repay? hours in order to have their hours reset in such a manner that the compressed work week system could be applied. The grievor, however, retired from the Ministry shortly after the strike, in June 2002, long before the balancing agreement was finalized by an order of the GSB on March 4, 2004. On March 31, 2004, the grievor rejoined the Ministry as an unclassified employee, and the employer subsequently deducted $291.12 from the grievor as part of the balancing agreement. The employer argues that it acted in accordance with the agreements between the parties, and the order of the GSB. The grievor asserts that any balancing of his hours could only have been effected at the time of his retirement from the Ministry, but that once he left, any such claim was extinguished. The fact that he was subsequently rehired as a casual should not have served to revive this extinguished claim. DECISION The employer is ordered to pay the grievor $291.12. I remain seized to deal with any issues arising from the implementation of this award. th Dated at Toronto, this 12 day of October, 2006. ________________________ Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair