HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-2785.Deneault.10-04-06 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
règlement des griefs
Settlement 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#2008-2785
UNION#2008-0642-0025
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Deneault)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
Felicity D. Briggs
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Karen Martin
Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services
Staff Relations Officer
HEARINGMarch 30, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The Employer and the Union at the Monteith Correctional Complex agreed
to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance
with the negotiated Protocol. Most 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, the decision is to be without
prejudice and precedent.
[2]Wendy Deneault is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievance regarding a
missed overtime opportunity on October 23, 2008. It was the grievor?s view
that she was bypassed incorrectly because the work at issue was in the A &
D area and she was not specifically trained in that area. However, she
should have been called into work to a different area and have an A & D
trained re-assigned for the shift at issue.
[3]The Employer provided HPRO documentation that indicated the grievor had
nd
of October and said that
called into the institution on the evening of the 22
she would be unavailable for overtime work the following day. She was
noted as ?bypassed? when an overtime shift became available at
rd
approximately five o?clock on the 23 of October. She was again called
regarding overtime work at 0845 hours and she was noted as declining the
shift. There was a notation made by the Operational Manager referring to a
doctor?s appointment.
- 3 -
nd
[4]The grievor had no recall of making a call on the evening of the 22 of
October. Further, she had a personal calendar that had no mention of a
rd
doctor?s appointment for the October 23. Indeed, the grievor?s specific
recall of her reason for denying the overtime offered on October 23, 2008
was because she went into Timmins with her daughter.
[5]Finally, Ms. Deneault provided documentation that she rarely declines
overtime opportunities. Indeed, October 23, 2008 was the only overtime
shift that she did not accept during the period between August 9, 2008 to
November 17, 2008.
[6]After consideration, I am of the view that this grievance must fail. While I
appreciate that the grievor does not recall making a call to the institution
forgoing any overtime opportunity on October 23, 2008, the Employer?s
HPRO documents are clear. There is no explanation for that note to have
nd
been made on the evening of October 22 2008 if the grievor did not call. I
do not think that the note was fabricated or otherwise invented by the
Employer to eliminate any overtime opportunities for the grievor. Further,
for whatever reason, when the grievor was offered a shift for virtually the
same period of time, she declined.
[7]For those reasons, the grievance is denied.
th
Dated at Toronto this 6 day of April 2010.
Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair