Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1739.Hayford.07-01-31 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# 2005-1739 UNION# 2004-0368-0155 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 (Hayford) - 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 Karen Martin Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services December 14, 2006. January 17,2007. 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 alleges that he was denied an overtime opportunity on February 6, 2004. The employer produced the call-in records for February 5, which indicate that the grievor was called five times during that evening, but that the line was busy each time. The records show the correct phone number and, the employer argues, while it is possible that the wrong number might have been called once, it is extremely unlikely that a wrong number leading to a busy signal could have been called five times. Further, the employer asserts, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the manager in question fabricated the call-in sheet, as suggested by the grievor. The grievor states that he was at home during the evening of February 5, but received no calls. He further states that his phone has a Bell answering service, which engages automatically when the line is busy. 3 DECISION The grievance is denied. Dated at Toronto, this 31 st day of January, 2007.