GSB# 2004-3206

UNION# 2004-0517-0104

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Tak)

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 an “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.

The grievance in this case relates to the grievor’s request for special and compassionate leave for a religious holiday on December 29, 2003. At the time, the grievor was an unclassified employee, and the collective agreement provisions with respect to special and compassionate leave did not apply to unclassified employees. The grievor, although unclassified, was “slotted” to fill in for a classified employee, and was scheduled to work December 29. As a result of the refusal to grant the leave, the grievor decided to work the day in question.

The union argues that the effect of the former provision was that unclassified employees were denied the religious rights available to other employees. The employer responds that the collective agreement provision did not apply to unclassified employees at the time, and the grievor could have exercised other options in order to get the time off.

After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be upheld in part. The employer is ordered to pay the grievor an amount equal to four (4) hours pay at his rate in effect in December 2003.

Dated at Toronto, this 25^th day of July, 2006.