GSB#2006-1047, 2008-3066, 2008-3067, 2009-0376, 2009-0378, 2009-0640, 2009-0641, 2009-0642, 2009-1206, 2009-1214, 2009-1215, 2009-1216, 2009-2765

UNION#2006-0119-0025, 2007-0119-0017, 2007-0119-0018, 2009-0119-0002, 2009-0119-0004, 2009-0119-0008, 2009-0119-0006, 2009-0119-0007, 2009-0108-0057, 2008-0119-0056, 2008-0119-0057, 2008-0119-0058, 2009-0108-0098

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Guylee)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Barry Stephens

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Frank Inglis, Anastasios Zafiriadis Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Greg Gledhill, Sean Milloy Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Staff Relations Advisor

HEARING SUBMISSIONS

February 18, 2009. January 12, 2011.

Decision

1The 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. This award is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and is without prejudice or precedent.

2This decision covers a number of grievances filed on behalf of the grievor.

2006-0119-0025

3The grievor was scheduled to work the week of July 11-17, 2005. He had surgery the previous week. Prior to the surgery he had anticipated he would be able to work the week of July 11 on modified duties, but he was not able to return to work for the entire week. As a result he worked only 28 hours, and was not credited for the week towards his CSD. The union argues that the grievor did the right thing, in that he attempted to make himself available for modified duties but, through no fault of his own, was absent for part of the week. The grievor asks that his CSD be increased by one week in recognition of the fact that he worked all scheduled hours that week, except for those hours lost due to bona fide unpaid sick leave.

4The employer responds that the grievor is not entitled to credit for unpaid sick leave, only for sick leave covered by earned sick leave credits.

5After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.

2007-0119-0017

6The grievor alleges that his roll-over to permanent status should be backdated as a result of the employer’s failure to properly staff the jail, and a violation of the RPM agreement. The employer responds that there is nothing in the collective agreement that requires them to maintain specific staffing on specific shifts, and that the staffing at the time was consistent with an agreement reached with the Ministry of Labour and the OLRB with respect to a prior health and safety issue raised by union members.

7After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.

2007-0119-0018

8This grievance concerns a hospital escort August 29 2007. The grievor received a voice message at home that day to ask him to do a hospital escort. By the time he called back he was advised that someone else had taken the call. He subsequently discovered that the employer had staffed the escort by using an employee from the institution and, in effect, ran short at the institution during the escort. The grievor claims the lost time. The employer responds that it was an emergency situation, it has a right decide to re-assign staff, and a right to determine staffing requirements, and there is no obligation to create an overtime opportunity.

9After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.

2008-0119-0056, 2008-0119-0057, 2008-0119-0058

10The grievor was union local president in June 2007 when the employer attempted to create a Compressed Work Week (CWW) for the Food Services department. The grievor objected to the employer’s planned schedule. There followed a number of meetings and exchanges between the grievor, as union representative, and management, in an attempt to agree on a new schedule. The employer eventually stated that if the union did not agree to the proposed schedule, the employees in Food Services would be scheduled to eight-hour shifts. There was no agreement and an eight-hour schedule was implemented. The grievances challenge the new schedule.

11The employer argues that the grievances are out of time and that, regardless, an eight-hour shift is the default shift as contemplated by the collective agreement, and CWW are the exception. There was no agreement on a CWW, and the employer does not require union agreement to schedule the default eight-hour schedule.

12After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievances should be dismissed.

2009-0119-0002

13In February 2009 the grievor was on union leave and was visiting a number of institutions to distribute information to members regarding collective bargaining. On February 21 the grievor was at the Stratford Jail engaged in these union activities. He grieves that he was ordered to leave the institution. The grievor seeks as remedy the posting of an apology in the workplace. The employer responds that the incident was properly handled, and that employees do not have an unfettered right to engage in union activities at the workplace.

14After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.

2009-0119-0004

15The grievor challenges a letter of counsel issued in March 2009. The employer responds that a letter of counsel is not disciplinary and not subject to the grievance procedure.

16After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.

2009-0119-0006, 2009-0119-0007, 2009-0119-0008, 2009-0108-0098

17The grievor engaged in a work refusal under the Occupational Health & Safety Act after being ordered to work overtime on April 21, 2009. He was subsequently disciplined for insubordination for his actions around the work refusal. The grievor eventually booked off sick and later claimed sick credits for the time he missed. He applied for WSIB benefits to cover the time missed, but his claim was unsuccessful. He was subsequently transferred to another institution and was advised he was required to give advance notice prior to returning to the Stratford facility. He grieves, among other things, denial of sick credits, harassment and stress arising from an alleged breach of a prior “roll-over” agreement, and the discipline.

18After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievances should be dismissed.

2009-0108-0057

19This grievance deals with the grievor’s allegation that he was denied a claim for paid leave at EMDC as a result of his unfairly “tarnished reputation” arising from the incidents related to the grievances outlined above. He had applied for compassionate leave to compensate for the “unpaid sick time” that followed the work refusal incident at Stratford Jail described above. The employer responds that the grievor’s request was reviewed and was denied on the basis that compassionate leave is not a “fallback” for a failed WSIB claim.

20After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.