HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2182.Lee.08-11-13 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#2006-2182
UNION#2006-0368-0182
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Lee)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
FOR THE UNION
Frank Inglis
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Gary Wylie
Staff Relataions Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARINGNovember 5, 2008.
2
Decision
[1]The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional Centre agreed to participate
in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol.
Many of the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few remained
unresolved and therefore require a decision from this Board. The Protocol provides that
decisions will be issued within a relatively short period of time after the actual mediation
sessions and will be without reasons. Further, in accordance with the Protocol, this
decision is to be without prejudice and precedent.
[2]James Lee is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievance that alleged the Employer failed
to comply with its own Community Escort Policy for a period of approximately eighteen
months. He asserted that he is qualified to act in the capacity of Escort and, as a result of
the Employer?s violation, he missed numerous overtime opportunities.
[3]The Employer conceded that in the period of time at issue the policy was not consistently
applied. However, in the Employer?s view, not all of the shifts for which the grievor
claims missed overtime opportunities were assigned to any employee. To be clear, it was
the Employer?s position that is has the sole discretion to determine whether to backfill a
position and therefore not every instance when a Correctional Officer was assigned Escort
Duty would have resulted in an additional Correctional Officer being called in to work
overtime.
[4]Regarding remedy the Union provided an estimate of possible shifts missed by the grievor.
The Employer challenged that number for a number of reasons including its right to
determine whether to backfill a position.
[5]By all accounts the Employer has not followed the Escort Policy and that should not
continue. I understand that the parties are discussing prospective application of the policy
and I encourage those discussions.
3
[6]I accept that the grievor would have been offered some overtime as a result of the Policy
breach but cannot agree to the Union?s figures. In my view, the Employer should pay the
grievor an amount of $1600 for those lost opportunities. While I appreciate this is a ?rough
and ready? calculation regarding the appropriate remedy, I am confident that it is
reasonable given these facts.
[7]I remain seized in the event of implementation difficulties.
th
Dated at Toronto this 13 day of November, 2008.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair