GSB#2008-2785

UNION#2008-0642-0025

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Deneault)

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

Scott Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

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

HEARING

March 30, 2010.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Monteith Correctional Complex 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.

2Wendy Deneault is a Correctional Officer who filed a grievance regarding a missed overtime opportunity on October 23, 2008. It was the grievor’s view that she was bypassed incorrectly because the work at issue was in the A & D area and she was not specifically trained in that area. However, she should have been called into work to a different area and have an A & D trained re-assigned for the shift at issue.

3The Employer provided HPRO documentation that indicated the grievor had called into the institution on the evening of the 22^nd of October and said that she would be unavailable for overtime work the following day. She was noted as “bypassed” when an overtime shift became available at approximately five o’clock on the 23^rd of October. She was again called regarding overtime work at 0845 hours and she was noted as declining the shift. There was a notation made by the Operational Manager referring to a doctor’s appointment.

4The grievor had no recall of making a call on the evening of the 22^nd of October. Further, she had a personal calendar that had no mention of a doctor’s appointment for the October 23^rd. Indeed, the grievor’s specific recall of her reason for denying the overtime offered on October 23, 2008 was because she went into Timmins with her daughter.

5Finally, Ms. Deneault provided documentation that she rarely declines overtime opportunities. Indeed, October 23, 2008 was the only overtime shift that she did not accept during the period between August 9, 2008 to November 17, 2008.

6After consideration, I am of the view that this grievance must fail. While I appreciate that the grievor does not recall making a call to the institution forgoing any overtime opportunity on October 23, 2008, the Employer’s HPRO documents are clear. There is no explanation for that note to have been made on the evening of October 22^nd 2008 if the grievor did not call. I do not think that the note was fabricated or otherwise invented by the Employer to eliminate any overtime opportunities for the grievor. Further, for whatever reason, when the grievor was offered a shift for virtually the same period of time, she declined.

7For those reasons, the grievance is denied.