GSB# 2004-1068, 2004-1069, 2004-1070, 2004-1071, 2004-1072, 2004-1073, 2004-1074, 2004-1903, 2004-2288, 2004-2289, 2004-2290, 2004-2291, 2004-2292, 2004-2293

UNION# 2004-0234-0307, 2004-0234-0308, 2004-0234-0309, 2004-0234-0310, 2004-0234-0311, 2004-0234-0312, 2004-0234-0313, 2004-0234-0474, 2004-0234-0541, 2004-0234-0542, 2004-0234-0543, 2004-0234-0544, 2004-0234-0545, 2004-0234-0546

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Longstreet 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

Mary-Jo Knappett Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

HEARING

July 22, 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 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.

A series of individual and group grievances were filed regarding the assignment of work on statutory holidays. The grievors allege that the manner in which the employer assigned statutory holiday work violated the grievors’ rights to the fair and equitable distribution of statutory holiday work opportunities. The employer responds that the collective agreement provides for the fair and equitable distribution of overtime, but that it does not speak to the distribution of statutory holiday work opportunities. The employer relies on GSB precedents, including the decision in Gillies, 0316/88 (Samuels) in which the vice-chair made the following comments:

“This Board has said often that an employee is not entitled to work on a statutory holiday. The Employer may assign whomever it wishes to work the holiday. See for example, Ferguson, 78/82 (Jolliffe); McCormick 386/81 (Barton); and Birse, 338/83 (Samuels). The grievors have no contractual right to work statutory holidays under the collective agreement, and they were not laid off.”

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 grievances are dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 31^st day of January, 2006.