HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0108.Ryckman.07-03-29 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# 2006-0108
UNION# 2005-0108-0081
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
BETWEEN
BEFORE
FOR THE UNION
FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING
DEADLINE FOR
SUBMISSIONS
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Ryckman)
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Barry Stephens
Stephen Giles and Marie Thomson
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Rena Khan and Gary Wylie
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
March 15,2007
March 20,2007.
Union
Employer
Vice-Chair
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties have agreed to a Med-Arb Protocol, signed February 27, 2006. Although the Elgin-
Middlesex Detention Centre is not formally covered by the protocol, the parties agreed at the
outset that the protocol would apply to the session held March 13 - 15, 2007. 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 called for a shift on September 22, 2005. He called back within 7 minutes, but
the shift had already been given away to another employee. It would appear that, since the
grievor had not answered the initial call, his name went to the bottom of the overtime call-in list,
and he was not offered a subsequent shift, from 2300 to 0700, that was offered to other
employees.
3
DECISION
The grievance is upheld. The grievor is entitled to compensation as if he had worked the shift
from 2300 to 0700 on the day in question. I will remain seized to deal with any issues arising
from the implementation of this decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2007.
Barry