HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0480.Davis.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
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# 2006-0480
UNION# 2005-0517-0080
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
(Davis)
- 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 grievor was an unclassified C02 at the time of her grievance. She was scheduled to work
the statutory holiday on September 5, 2005 as part of her accommodated work arrangements.
Some time prior to September 5, the grievor was contacted by the scheduling officer, C02
Skingsley, who advised her that her scheduled shift from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on September 5 was
being cancelled but she was offered the shift from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on the same day. The grievor
advised C02 Skingsley that she had childcare issues with respect to working until 8 p.m. She
was then advised that her shift was cancelled. After she hung up, the grievor found someone to
provide childcare for the hour in question and called C02 Skingsley 10 minutes later to say she
was available for the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. shift. C02 Skingsley advised her the shift has already been
assigned to another employee.
3
The grievor states that there were two other unclassified employees who were assigned to the 7
a.m. to 7 p.m. shift on September 5, and argues that she should have had first right to the shift
over them, as she was scheduled to work those shifts before them. In addition, the grievor also
relies on the fact that two classified CO's worked the shift as 'overtime' (i.e. not part of their
regular rotation), including Ms. Skingsley. Thus the union relies on the fact that the shift in
question was the grievor's regularly scheduled shift, and that other employees, including Ms.
Skingsley, were assigned to work that shift.
The employer responds that it has the discretion to schedule employees without regard to the
collective agreement on a statutory holiday. The employer also stated that unclassified
employees who are assigned a 'slot' on the schedule are normally permitted to work statutory
holidays that occur in that slot.
DECISION
After carefully reviewing the facts and considering the submissions of the parties, I order the
grievor is to be paid 6 hours holiday pay for the shift in question. 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