HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0682.Heinbuch-Marien.11-11-09 DecisionCommission de
Crown Employees
Grievance Settlement
UqJOHPHQt des griefs
Board
dHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 7pl. : (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
Fa
GSB#2010-0682, 2010-0683, 2010-2437, 2010-2438
UNION#2010-0122-0003, 2010-0122-0004, 2010-0122-0015, 2010-0122-0016
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Heinbuch/Marien)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Children and Youth Services)
Employer
BEFORE Barry Stephens Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNIONFrank Inglis and Tim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYERNicholas Sapp
Ministry of Government Services
Centre for Employee Relations
Employee Relations Advisor
HEARING
August 19, 2011.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties agreed to present this grievance in accordance with Article 22.16 of the
collective agreement, and this decision is without prejudice or precedent.
[2]The grievances all involve fixed term employees who allege that they were improperly
sent home mid-shift for assigned shifts. They rely on the overtime protocol in place at the
institution. The portion of the protocol in dispute reads as follows:
³,IDQ\VKLIWVIRUDQXQFODVVLILHG<6O are cancelled or the unclassified YSO
becomes unavailable (e.g. unpaid sick leave, Leave of Absence without pay,
emergency Not Available etc.) this will result in overtime not occurring because
these hours are deducted from the weekly total. Any overtime already signed for
ZLOOEHFRQYHUWHGWRVWUDLJKWWLPHE\WKHSHUVRQQHOFOHUN´
[3]The grievors argue the protocol contemplates the cancellation of complete shifts only,
and that the employer is not permitted to cancel part shifts.
[4]After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my
conclusion that the grievances should be dismissed. In my view, there is no reason apparent in
the protocol that would restrict the cancellation of shifts to full shifts as the union suggests.
Indeed, it would appear that, in most cases, the cancellation of part of a shift would be of some
benefit to the employee, in that he or she would be permitted to work some additional hours
rather than losing an entire shift. Regardless, it is my view that the language does not lead to the
conclusion suggested by the union, and as a result the grievances are dismissed.
th
Dated at Toronto this 9 day of November 2011.
Barry Stephens, Vice-Chair