GSB# 2004-0083, 2004-0084, 2004-2607, 2004-2608, 2004-2609, 2004-2610
UNION# 2003-0248-0183, 2004-0248-0006, 2004-0248-0098, 2004-0248-0099, 2004-0248-0100, 2004-0248-0101
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Fletcher)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Deborah J.D. Leighton
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Gavin Leeb Barrister and Solicitor
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Janice Campbell Counsel Ministry of Government Services
CONFERENCE CALL
November 21, 2005.
Decision
A conference call was held on November 21, 2005 to hear the union’s motion to keep the grievor on her “old schedule” until January 9, 2006. The grievor returned to work at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Center (HWDC) on November 14, 2005, after working the last three months at the Niagara Detention Centre on her “old schedule.” The plan for returning her to HWDC up until November 9, 2005 was that the grievor would work on her old schedule. On November 10, 2005, the employer sought to change the grievor’s schedule so that she would be working on the “other side” of the schedule. The compressed work agreement at HWDC is that corrections officers work five shifts one week and then two shifts the next. The side of the schedule is determined by which week is short or long. Corrections Officers working on one side of the schedule do not generally come into contact with those working on the other side.
The Union submitted that the grievor should be temporarily accommodated, until she could make alternate child care arrangements for her child – who has significant health challenges. The grievor and her husband schedule their work around the child’s special needs. The union submitted that the grievor would need until January 9, 2006 to rearrange her husband’s schedule and her childcare schedule, to fit her new work schedule.
The Employer submitted that they sought to change the grievor’s schedule to assist her in reintegration into the institution. The employer felt strongly that it was in the best interests of the grievor to return to a work schedule that was opposite of some other employees. Previously the grievor had made a WDHP complaint against some of these individuals. There had been friction in the work place between the grievor and these individuals, and the employer was trying to avoid unnecessary tension, and potential dissention.
No case law was argued, and the parties requested an expedited order. Having carefully considered the submissions, and recognizing the importance of balancing the needs and concerns of both parties, I have concluded that the individual need for temporary accommodation outweighs the institution’s concerns of possible fractious behaviour. Thus, the grievor shall remain on her “old schedule” until January 9, 2006.
With regard to the employer’s concerns of potential conflict, the parties both recognized that the union and the employer have a duty to do their best to assist in the grievor’s reintegration.
Dated at Toronto this 24th day of November 2005.