HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1694.Theriault et al.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# 2005-1694, 2005-1695, 2005-1696, 2005-1697, 2005-1698
UNION# 2005-0618-0042, 2005-0618-0043, 2005-0618-0044, 2005-0618-0045, 2005-0618-0046
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Theriaultet al.)
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
The grievors were all unclassified YSO?s at the time of the grievance. On May 26, 2005, a
resident was placed in the secure isolation area for failure to comply with search procedures.
The grievors assert that employer policy 08/03 required that a staff member should have been
assigned to provide constant supervision of the resident. Instead, the employer directed the
escort officer on Unit 2 to provide intermittent supervision.
The union argues that one of the grievors should have been called in to provide constant
supervision, and that person would have received four hours pay for the assignment. The
employer responds that it is a matter of management rights how and whether to apply specific
policies, subject only to the terms of the collective agreement. There was nothing in the
collective agreement to prevent the employer from departing from the policy in the
circumstances. However, even had the policy been followed, the employer states that an
3
employee already on duty would have been assigned to provide the constant supervision of the
resident, and none of the grievor?s would have been called in for a four-hour assignment.
DECISION
The grievance is dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto, this 9 day of May, 2007.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair