Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2509.Union Grievance.06-12-08 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas Sl. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de reglement des griefs des employes de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec. : (416) 326-1396 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under Nj ~ Ontario GSB# 2005-2509 UNION# 2005-0252-0059 THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN BEFORE FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union Grievance) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Barry Stephens Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union Karen Martin Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services November 8,2008. Union Employer Vice-Chair 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. FACTS The union filed a policy grIevance with respect to the Compressed Work Week (CWW) agreement, alleging that the employer had been scheduling for several years on the basis of a number of slots not supported by the CWW agreement. The employer responded that the scheduling in question was implemented after reaching a verbal understanding with the union executive at the time. The employer also claims that the union is estopped from pursing this grievance, given that the changes were introduced most recently in 2002, yet the grievance was not filed until November 2005. (Since the filing of the grievance, the parties have reached mutual agreement on a new CWW, so the question of termination of the estoppel is not an issue.) 3 DECISION In my view, the union is estopped from pursuing this grievance. The grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of December, 2006. Barry