GSB# 2000-1143
UNION# 2000-0517-0018
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Roy)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Scott Andrews Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Pauline Jones Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
June 20, 2006.
Decision
The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to a “True Mediation-Arbitration” process, wherein each provides the vice-chair with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. The process adopted by the parties provides for a canvassing of the facts during the mediation phase, although the vice-chair has the discretion to request further information or documentation. Arbitration decisions are issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, without reasons, and are without prejudice or precedent.
This grievance dates back to an incident in August 2000. The grievor was disciplined for failing to complete assigned work. On the day in question, he had accepted an overtime extension. The grievor wished to take a meal break prior to starting the extension, as he had not had a meal break since the beginning of his shift. His supervisor advised him to complete his assigned task before taking his break. The grievor expressed concern about these instructions, and decided to “cancel” his overtime extension. The grievor asserts the discipline was unwarranted, as he was acting based on health and safety concerns. He also relied on the fact that there is a “poisoned” working relationship with this supervisor that was reflected in a GSB decision issued in October 1996. He also seeks compensation for loss of the four-hour overtime extension.
The employer responds that the grievor had opportunity for a meal break during his shift, stating that there was a period of approximately 1 and ½ hours when the grievor had no assigned duties. If he did not take a meal during this time, it was his own choice. The grievor was not denied a break, rather, he was advised to complete an assigned duty before taking a meal break. This was not a circumstance in which the grievor’s health was threatened, and he should have followed the principle of “obey now, grieve later.” The grievor was insubordinate in failing to complete his assignment and in “cancelling” the shift extension.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of July, 2006.