GSB# 2004-0356
UNION# 2004-0234-0132
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Winkworth)
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
December 13, 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. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with article 22.16 of the collective agreement and, therefore, are without precedent.
The grievor alleges that his continuous service date (CSD) is incorrect. First, he alleges that he was not credited with the two weeks of employment from January 4 to 17, 1999, when he was going through orientation. Second, he alleges he was denied credit for two weeks of vacation taken from June 21 and July 4, 1999 covering the period of his honeymoon. The employer responds that the grievor’s records indicate he was offered employment to start on January 18, 1999, and that there is no record that he applied for vacation time for his honeymoon.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be allowed in part, and that the grievor should be awarded two weeks to be added to his CSD.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of February, 2006.