GSB# 1998-1137
UNION# 1998-0582-0014 [98A885]
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Blades)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Timothy Bingham Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
August 2, 2005.
Decision
The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol for the Toronto East Detention Centre. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to an expedited process wherein each party provides the vice-chair with written submissions, which include the facts and authorities the party intends to rely upon, one week prior to the hearing. At the hearing, oral evidence is not to be called, although the vice-chair is permitted to request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to the vice-chair that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex or significant nature, the case may be taken out of the expedited process and processed through “regular” arbitration, i.e. immediately scheduled through the Joint File Review process. Although individual grievors often wish to provide oral evidence at arbitration, the process adopted by the parties provides for a thorough canvassing of the facts prior to the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process.
This grievance relates to the grievor’s continuous service date (CSD) and was filed September 8, 1998. The grievor was hired as an unclassified corrections officer in May 1988. He became a classified employee in October 1989. Given his prior service, his continuous service date has been adjusted to October 1988. The union agrees that the employer has accurately recorded the hours worked by the grievor during the period of his unclassified employment, and that the number of full-time weeks worked has been properly calculated in accordance with Art. 18.1(b) of the collective agreement. The grievor did not challenge the calculation of the hours attributed to him by the employer, nor did he assert that there had been improper motive or actions related to the scheduling of his hours. He simply alleges that, during the period of his unclassified employment, he was available to work full time hours every week, and that other unclassified employees hired at or around the same time as him worked full time hours more often. Thus, the grievor submits that hours were not evenly distributed during his time as an unclassified employee, and that, if they had been, his CSD would properly be dated to approximately May 1988.
The employer responds that no records were kept of the distribution of hours during the time in question; that shifts were filled by a number of different managers; that, given the passage of time, it is not possible to reconstruct the circumstances; and, that the collective agreement does not contain a requirement that hours be evenly distributed among unclassified employees.
Having reviewed the evidence and the submissions of the parties, it is my view that there was no collective agreement requirement to distribute hours to unclassified employees in any specific manner, or in accordance with any specific test or measure. As a result, there is no evidence of a breach of the collective agreement, and the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of September, 2005.