HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0424.Fitzpatrick.06-10-11 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# 2005-0424
UNION# 2004-0530-0015
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Fitzpatrick)
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 Karen Martin & Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
September 28, 2006.
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. Although the
Toronto Jail was not specifically covered by that protocol, at the outset of our session on
September 27, 2006, both the union and the employer agr eed to follow the protocol as closely as
possible. 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 ?Tru e Mediation-Arbitration? process, wherein each
provides the vice-chair with s ubmissions, which include the fact s and authorities each relies
upon. The process adopted by the parties provid es for a canvassing of the facts during the
mediation phase under the Protocol. Arbitration decisions are issu ed 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. A ccordingly, the matter has been
referred to me as a True Mediation/Arbitration decision under the Protocol.
FACTS
The grievor seeks payment for January 15, 2004 as a day of special or compassionate leave. The
night before the shift in question the weather was particularly cold and the grievor?s car failed to
start. She called CAA, and was advised that they would not be able to come to her assistance
until some time the next morning. She lives in Betheny, Ontario, which is a small town near
Peterborough. She states public transportation is not readily available from her area.
The employer takes the position that the circumstan ces are not such as to justify compassionate
leave. The grievor is re sponsible for arranging her transportati on to and from work. She is also
3
responsible for maintaining her car in proper working order, pa rticularly given where she has
chosen to live, and her dependence on the car as her sole means of transportation.
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 11 day of October, 2006.
________________________
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair