HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1983.Silver.09-02-20 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#2005-1983, 2006-1241, 2006-1242
UNION#2005-0678-0018, 2006-0678-0014, 2006-0678-0015
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Silver)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Barry Stephens
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews, Stephens Giles and Peter
Wright
Grievance Officers
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYERBrian Scott and Sean Milloy
Staff Relations Officers
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
HEARING
June 19, 2008.
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONSDecember 8, 2008.
2
Decision
[1]The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not
necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that 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. This decision
is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective
agreement, and is without prejudice or precedent.
[2]The grievor filed several grievances with respect to vacation scheduling and entitlements.
[3]The grievor alleges, in the grievance dated August 24, 2005, that the employer did not
properly fill vacation requests ?following full seniority procedures and without
limitations?, and relies upon Art. 46.1(d). The employer responds that the latter article
sets out the amount of vacation credit accumulation, and does not set out how seniority is
to govern with respect to vacation scheduling. The evidence is that the parties have, for a
number of years, followed a vacation protocol dealing with vacation scheduling, which is
discussed and revised as necessary each year, and which contains restrictions and
provisions that go beyond the seniority of individual employees. There is nothing
improper about such a protocol, the employer argues, and it is fully within the power of
the parties to be guided by such a protocol in working out a fair method for distributing
vacation scheduling opportunities. I accept the employer?s submission, and the grievance
is dismissed.
3
[4]The grievor alleges, in a grievance dated May 31, 2006, that he was denied a request for a
single vacation day on May 5, 2006. Although the employer allows up to five employees
to be on vacation on a given day, there were only two employees on vacation on May 5,
2006. However, the employer denied the grievor?s request, which was made with three
days advance notice, on the basis that there no classified employees available to cover his
shift, which meant the employer could not agree to the grievor?s request without
incurring overtime costs. The employer argues that it is not required to incur overtime
expenses in order to accommodate a vacation request submitted on short notice. Given
the circumstances, I agree that the employer was not required to incur overtime expense
and this grievance is dismissed.
[5]The grievor also filed a grievance on February 3, 2006 alleging that the vacation protocol
contravened the collective agreement, and that the protocol should be annulled and
replaced with a new agreement that is consistent with the collective agreement. The
evidence indicates that the grievor used all but 3.125 of the 31.625 vacation credits
available to him during 2006. The 3.125 credits were carried over and used in 2007. The
carry over of credits is provided for in the collective agreement. I note that the grievor?s
2006 vacation allotment included 1.625 vacation credits carried over from the previous
year.
[6]The grievor argues that the method of calculation restricts vacation scheduling in a
manner which is unfair to the grievor and others in his position. The employer responds
that the grievor incurred no loss associated with the vacation protocol. I agree with the
employer?s submission that the carry over of vacation is normal under this collective
agreement, and the amount of vacation carried over by the grievor is not enough to lead
4
to a concern that there might be a systemic problem with the vacation scheduling
protocol, let along a collective agreement violation. This grievance is also dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 20 day of February 2009.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair