HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3761.Vowles.07-02-01 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# 2005-3761
UNION# 2006-0368-0015
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
(Vowles)
- 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 is an OAG4. He claims he was denied an overtime opportunity on January 25,2006.
On that day another employee in reception was absent due to illness. The grievor states the
employer used a C02 to assist with the work. The grievance claims that the employer should
have called the grievor to offer him the overtime shift. The employer responds that some of the
work in question was performed by another staff member, and that other work was postponed.
The C02 was only assisted for a short period, until the work priorities could be assigned. The
employer asserts it is not required to required to create an overtime opportunity if it can cover the
work in some other manner consistent with the terms of the collective agreement.
3
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of February, 2007.