GSB# 2005-0981
UNION# 2005-0517-0015
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Beek)
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
Faith Crocker Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
HEARING
May 17, 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 Selena Beek. Ms. Beek grieves the cancellation of her shift on January 8, 2005. At the time Ms. Beek was working an accommodated work schedule, involving three 12-hour consecutive night shifts each week. On her arrival at work for her three-day session on January 6, 2005, Ms. Beek was advised that the following week she would be attending escort training for five 8-hour days, from January 10 to 16. She accepted the necessity of attending the training, and did not object to the fact that it did not fit with her medical accommodation. However, she objected to the fact that she would only have one day to between her regular night shift and the day-time training session.
The employer cancelled Ms. Beek’s shift on January 8 in order to provide her more time to adjust to the change in hours. However, Ms. Beek continued to maintain that she could not attend the January 10 to 16 training session. As a result, her training session was cancelled, and rescheduled in April 2005. However, the January 8 shift had already been cancelled and, as a result, the grievor lost 12 hours of pay that week. The grievor seeks reimbursement for this lost shift.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, I order the employer to pay the grievor six (6) hours pay.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of May, 2006.