Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-1760.Whyte.07-02-02 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# 2006-1760,2006-1769 UNION# 2006-0368-0116,2006-0368-0125 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 (Whyte) - 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 a motor vehicle operator and grieves that he was denied overtime opportunities on September 13 and September 19, 2006. The employer states that the shifts in question were filled by unclassified corrections officers as regular hours, and no overtime opportunity was created or available to the grievor. The employer asserts that it assigns corrections officers on a regular basis to perform driving work. The union asserts that the employer was not free to assign the work in question to corrections officers, as driving is work that should be performed first by the motor vehicle operators, and other employees should perform such work only when an operator is not available. 3 DECISION The grievances are denied. Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of February, 2007.