HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1249.Pierobon.07-05-09 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
règlement des griefs
Board
des employés de la
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2005-1249
UNION# 2005-0618-0032
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Pierobon)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Children and Youth Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Giles and Gregg Gray
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER Nicholas Sapp and Pauline Barr
Employee Relations Advisors
Ministry of Children and Youth Services
HEARING May 4, 2007
DEADLINE FOR May 8, 2007.
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
2
Decision
INTRODUCTION
The parties held a mediation/arbitration session from May 2 to 4, 2007. The process adopted by
the parties provided for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase. In some cases,
where a mediated settlement could not be reached, the parties mutually agreed that arbitration
decisions would be issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, without
reasons, and without prejudice or precedent. The parties were unable to resolve this matter in
mediation. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to me for a decision.
FACTS
Derek Pierobon is an unclassified YSO. He grieves that in June 2005 he was denied an overtime
opportunity. On the day in question, the grievor was at the hospital involved in a private family
matter. Hospital policy prohibits the use of cell phones inside the facility.
An employee called in sick at the workplace shortly before the shift starting at 19:00. The
employer called the grievor?s residence and left a message offering him the shift. The grievor
did not respond, as he was still at the hospital at the time, and, given the immediate need, the
employer hired another employee to fill the shift. A few minutes later, another shift came open,
this one starting at 23:00. The grievor had not responded to the first call, and he was not called
for the 23:00 shift. The grievor called the workplace on his return home, but did not speak to a
manager.
3
The grievor argued that there was no urgency to fill the 23:00 shift, and the employer should
have called to offer the shift, or checked back later to see if he had returned home. The employer
responds that the grievor?s lack of response to the first call rendered it unnecessary to call him
for the second shift, and it would be inefficient and unworkable to make multiple calls to an
employee who does not respond.
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 9 day of May, 2007.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair