Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-3194.Luther et al.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 Nj ~ Ontario Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tel. : (416) 326-1388 Telec, : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2006-3194,2006-3195 UNION# 2006-0108-0036,2006-0108-0037 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under 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 (Luther et al.) - 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 These grievances relate to availability for work for the July 1, 2006 statutory holiday. Both grievors had submitted their availability for work on that date but had not checked off the box indicating availability for partial shifts. The grievors assert that they should have been called, in spite of their failure to mark off the "partial" shift, because, according to Article COR13.I, they would have received double time for full hours regardless of how many hours they actually worked. In other words, any employees getting called in or scheduled for that day would have received double time for an entire shift, and it should not matter what shift was being filled or which type of shifts an employees signed up for, as all were being paid the same. Both grievors 3 allege that they should have been called in for partial shifts for July 1, 2006, and seek full payment for the shifts in question. The employer takes the position that the best way to protect the integrity of the overtime and call-in system is to enforce the process according to clear rules that all employees know in advance. This is beneficial to the employer but it is also of benefit to all employees, who enjoy the certainty created by a system that is transparent, clear, and enforceable. The sign-up system is based on the employee's availability to work specific shits and types of shifts. It is not based on pay, as the grievors suggest it should have been with respect to this specific day. In this instance, the grievors had it within their control to select partial shifts. They did not do so, and they were not considered for partial shifts. DECISION The grievances are dismissed. Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2007. Barry