HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1986.Cottier et al.07-01-29 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
Nj
~
Ontario
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. : (416) 326-1388
Telec. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2006-1986, 2006-1992
UNION# 2006-0517-0027,2006-0517-0033
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Cottier et al.)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Scott Andrews
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Faith Crocker
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
November 23, 2006.
January 12,2007.
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 grievors were hired together and went through training together with other correctional
employees. Some years after achieving classified status, the grievors discovered that another
member of the course they had been on had been credited with a Continuous Service Date (CSD)
that predates their CSDs. The grievors seek to have their CSDs adjusted accordingly. Both
grievor's acknowledge that their CSDs appear to have been calculated in accordance with the
provisions of the collective agreement. The grievors argue that the adjustments in question
would be relatively minor.
3
The employer responds that the grievors are seeking a remedy that is beyond the collective
agreement, and that a potential error with respect to another employee does not lead to the
conclusion that the grievors should be given the benefit of a similar error.
DECISION
After giving careful consideration to the facts, and the submissions of the parties, in particular
the provisions of the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievances should be
dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of January, 2007.
Barry