Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pratt) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 CanLII 15644

GSB#2009-0423

UNION#2009-0108-0031

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pratt)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Felicity D. Briggs

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Laura Josephson Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Staff Relations Officer

HEARING

January 25, 2010.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Most of the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few remained unresolved and therefore require a decision from this Board. The Protocol provides that decisions will be issued within a relatively short period of time after the actual mediation sessions and will be without reasons. Further, the decision is to be without prejudice and precedent.

2Ms. Anne Pratt is a Correctional Officer who has grieved that on February 20, 2009 the Employer violated the HPRO regarding overtime when it did not ask her to work overtime between the hours of 1900 and 2300.

3Ms. Pratt was scheduled to work from 0700 to 1900 on February 20, 2009. She had indicated that she was available to work overtime on the OB shift which is 1900 to 2300.

4Mr. Brydges had worked from 0700 to 1500 but he had also indicated his availability to work overtime on February 20, 2009 on the O1 shift which is the 1500 to 1900 shift as well as the OA shift which is 1500 to 2300.

5The grievor stated that it is often the case that the hours between 1500 and 2300 are parsed into two shifts. She took the position that she should have been offered the overtime for the OB shift while Mr. Brydges could have worked the O1 shift.

6I am of the view that there has been no violation of the Collective Agreement or HPRO. The Employer can determine the length and timing of a shift for which overtime is needed. According to the documents provided by the Employer, it determined overtime was required for the OA shift and they offered that work to another CO first but ultimately it is offered and accepted by Mr. Brydges. Both of those officers had indicated a willingness to work the OA shift on the day in question. The Employer’s actions were appropriate.

7Grievance denied.