GSB# 2004-2811

UNION# 2004-0234-0624

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Baker)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Marilyn A. Nairn

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Stephen Giles Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Rena Khan Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

HEARING

October 6, 2005.

Decision

The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to determine grievances at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex and Vanier Centre for Women. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to attempt to resolve matters at mediation; failing which, they have agreed to utilize an expedited arbitration process. In preparation, each party provides the Vice-Chair with written submissions one week prior to the hearing. Those submissions include a statement of the facts, as well as the argument (supported by authorities) on which each party intends to rely. At the hearing, oral evidence is not called, although the Vice-Chair may request further information or documentation. In addition, if it becomes apparent to either party, or to the Vice-Chair, that the issues involved in a particular case are of a complex 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, and at the hearing, and leads to a fair and efficient adjudication process.

In this case, the grievance asserts that the employer is in violation of the collective agreement by failing to pay the grievor, Lori Baker, overtime pay for eight hours. The grievor is employed as an unclassified CO2 at the Vanier Centre. The overtime protocol for Vanier contemplates that unclassified COs will receive the opportunity to work 40 hours per week.

On October 12, 2004 the grievor had worked 32 hours towards her 40 hour week. A twelve hour shift became available that day. The grievor asserts that the employer should necessarily have split that work into an eight-hour shift and a four-hour extension, assuring that the grievor obtain her 40 hours as early in the week as possible. The grievor did obtain a shift the next day which enabled her to obtain 40 hours for that week.

The grievor’s complaint is not that the employer failed to provide her with the opportunity of 40 hours of work that week. Her complaint arises because had the employer assigned the work earlier in the week, the grievor would have been entitled to overtime for any work assigned later that week. The commitment in the protocol is to offer unclassified staff the opportunity to work 40 hours per week (so that the week may be counted toward the unclassified CO’s continuous service date). The protocol does not appear to create a commitment by the employer to offer work to unclassified staff in such a way so as to maximize their overtime opportunities. In this case, the grievor was offered and did work 40 hours in the week in question. I am satisfied that this meets the employer’s obligation in the circumstances.

This grievance is therefore dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 17^th day of October, 2005.