GSB# 2003-0196, 2003-0197, 2003-0756
UNION# 2003-0234-0082, 2003-0234-0083, 2003-0234-0146
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Todorovic et al.)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Stephen Giles
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Mike Briscoe
Staff Relations Officer
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
June 2, 2005.
Decision
The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol for the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. 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 called, although the vice-chair is permitted to request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to either party, or 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. 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.
The parties agreed to a Compressed Work Week (CWW) agreement covering Units 5, 6 and 7. The grievances all relate to the fact that the schedule contains five day shift positions on Friday, although the fifth position has never been filled. The union alleges that the failure to fill the fifth position is a breach of the staffing levels agreed between the parties in the CWW agreement. The union further alleges that, since no employee was scheduled to work the shifts, the hours in question should have been made available as overtime, and the grievors allege they have missed such overtime opportunities. The employer responds that the CWW agreement deals with hours of work, and contains an undertaking that provides for a schedule that results in a balanced distribution of hours at the end of the CWW rotation. The employer states that the CWW is not a “manning” provision, that it reserves its right to determine how many employees are required to fill a particular shift, and that neither the CWW agreement nor collective agreement contain guarantees of specific staffing levels on any particular shift.
Having carefully reviewed the evidence presented and the submissions of the parties, it is my view that there is no evidence of a breach of the collective agreement. As a result, the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of August, 2005.