GSB# 2003-0759
UNION# 2003-0234-0149
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pierrepoint)
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
Rena Khan Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
November 9, 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.
The grievor was an unclassified employee who has since left the employ of the Ministry. He states that his contract of employment contained a provision that stipulated he was to receive “positive pay” of 40 hours per week. He asserts that means that he was entitled to a guarantee of 40 hours per week, and there were at least six week during his employment when he did not receive 40 hours work or 40 hours pay. Employer counsel responds that the reference to “positive pay” does not guarantee 40 hours per week, but merely reflects the long-standing practice that unclassified employees are eligible for the opportunity to work up to 40 hours of straight time per pay week.
After having reviewed the collective agreement, and the submissions of the parties it is my conclusion that there is no violation of the collective agreement, and that the employer’s hiring practices with respect to the grievor were consistent with the terms of the collective agreement as well as with the clear practice between the parties. As a result the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of February, 2006.