GSB# 2004-3323
UNION# 2004-0234-0693
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Kujtan)
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 any 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 credit the grievor, Terry Kujtan, with all time spent travelling outside of his working hours. The grievor, who lives in Milton, was in Toronto in order to attend a five-day training course. He was away from home for the five days and he was not credited with the hours he spent outside of work while in Toronto (and excluding those hours referred to in Article 14.4), that is, those hours between 4:30 p.m. and 11 p.m.
This matter has already been determined in Re Pool and Ministry of Correctional Services, G.S.B. No. 596/83 (R.J. Roberts), August 15th, 1984. Upon reviewing the decision, the union conceded as much. Article 14 of the collective agreement speaks to “travelling” and has been determined not to incorporate time spent away from home but which is otherwise “free time”. As stated by Vice-Chair Roberts, “the word ‘travelling’ solely refers to the act of physically moving from one place to another on government business” (at page 3). The claim here is for “free time” and the collective agreement provides no entitlement for such periods of time.
This grievance is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 17th day of October, 2005.