Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-2613.Thomas.12-01-05 Decision Crown Employees rieva nce Settlement oard 1Z8 l. (416) 326-1388 x (416) 326-1396 t des griefs es employés de la t Z8 l. : (416) 326-1388 léc. : (416) 326-1396 UNION#2011-0582-0055 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD ETWEEN G B Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G Te Commission de règlemen d Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Oues Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1 Té Té Fa GSB#2011-2613 B Ontario Public ployees Union (Thom Union (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) Employer Service Em as) - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario BEFORE Felicity D. Briggs Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION ice Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Laura Josephson Ontario Public Serv Grievance Officer s s Sia Romanidis Ministry of Government Service Centre for Employee Relation Employee Relations Advisor HEARING December 12, 2011. - 2 - Decision [1] The Employer and the Union at the Toronto East Detention Centre 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] Matthew Thomas is a nurse who filed a grievance alleging that he was entitled to be called to work overtime on Thanksgiving Monday, 2011. He was schedule to, and did work 1500 hours to 2300 hours. The Employer needed an employee to work 0800 hours to 1600 hours. The grievor was of the view that because the person who actually worked the shift at issue did not report until 0830 hours, the shift needed became a “part” shift. He claimed that he was entitled to that work because he had indicated on HPRO that he was willing to work “part” shifts. [3] Put simply, there is no violation of the collective agreement or the overtime protocol. The grievor could not perform the work at issue because the shift need by the Employer did not finish until 1600 hours and the grievor was already scheduled to begin his work at 1500 hours. Accordingly, the grievor could not meet the Employer’s requirements. There is no obligation upon the Employer to alter its staffing needs to facilitate the grievor’s availability for overtime work. - 3 - [4] The grievance is denied. Dated at Toronto this 5th day of January 2012. Felicity D. Briggs, Vice-Chair