Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1989.Cobb.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# 2006-1989,2006-1994 UNION# 2006-0517-0030,2005-0517-0082 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 (Cobb) - 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 Pauline Jones 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 grievor filed two grievances alleging that he should have been offered "double" overtime opportunities on the same day (i.e. two shifts amounting to 16 hours) prior to unclassified employees working such shifts. The union relies on the fact that the relevant overtime protocol does not preclude double shifts, and, indeed, double shifts are contemplated in paragraph 9. The protocol further provides that, once having accepted a shift, the employee's overtime sheet is to be moved to the bottom of the call-in 'pile'. This does not mean, the union argues, that the grievor is no longer eligible to be called in, only that he has a lower priority. However, that lower priority always gives a classified employee the right to an overtime shift before an unclassified employee. 3 The employer responds that it followed the practice of moving the grievor's sheet to the bottom of the pile once he was offered the first shift, as set out in the protocol. It did not consider the grievor eligible for another overtime shift on the same days. In addition, with respect to the 2005 grievance, the employer asserts that the grievor was booked to work 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and the second shift was from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. This would have entailed cancelling or breaking up the grievor's first shift, which the employer is not required to do. DECISION The 2006 grievance [GSB#2006-I989] is upheld. The employer is to pay the grievor 8 hours overtime. The 2005 grievance [GSB#2006-I994] is dismissed. I will remain seized to deal with any issues arising from the implementation of this award. Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of January, 2007. Barry