GSB# 2004-2812

UNION# 2004-0234-0625

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Kranstz)

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 he was not offered the opportunity to work overtime on several shifts in September and October 2004. In all cases, he asserts that unclassified employees were hired to work non-overtime shifts on the dates in question. The employer responds that the overtime protocol contemplates that unclassified employees with less then 40 hours in a work week may be assigned a shift before a regular employee is offered overtime, and that no overtime opportunity is available in such circumstances.

After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that there is no evidence that the employer violated the overtime protocol or the collective agreement. As a result, the grievance is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 21^st day of February, 2006.