GSB#2010-2208

UNION#2010-0502-0051

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Porter)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care)

Employer

BEFORE

Loretta Mikus

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Lesley Gilchrist Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Kylie Humphreys Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Officer

HEARING

June 1, 2011.

Decision

1The grievor, Anita Porter, has been employed in the Correspondence Services Unit of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, as a Correspondence Clerk since 1987. She grieves that the Employer has violated Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the collective agreement by imposing unreasonable working arrangements on her that has caused her undue stress. She also alleged that the Employer has discriminated against her for union activity. She asks that her previous hours of work be reinstated.

2The parties referred this grievance to mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement. The parties have also agreed that I have the jurisdiction to decide this matter and asked for a decision without prejudice and precedent and without reasons.

3The grievance arises from the Employer’s decision in July of 2008 to set the hours of work for all employees in the Unit from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30. The grievor had worked from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for 23 years and had adjusted her life to those hours. She is a diabetic and, she stated, must prepare particular meals at particular times and avoid stress. These new hours interfere with her orderly life plan. She had been able to avoid the stresses and delays of commuting to work by joining a car pool but has been unable to make alternative arrangements. She attends doctor appointments twice a month and is about to participate in a program with weekly meetings. These new hours do not allow for those appointments or to make up the time to attend.

4She provided me with a medical note from her attending physician in which she stated that it was imperative that the grievor be accommodated in her work by scheduling her from 7:a.m. to 3 p.m. She stated that the hours set by the Employer “are posing a serious ongoing health problem for her and impacting on her ability to work efficiently in her job and job related activities”. Additionally she stated that the new hours do not allow her enough time to prepare meals and eat early enough in the evening to exercise and get enough sleep.

5The Employer takes the position that the change in the hours of work was prompted by valid business concerns. It receives numerous calls after 3 p.m. and requires all clerks to be available to handle these calls. In the hour that the grievor works before 8:30 a.m. there are no incoming calls and after 3:30 p.m. other clerks have to handle work that should have been done by her.

6Additionally, the Employer submitted it had given the grievor 3 months to make alternative arrangements and adjust her new schedule. It has also allowed the grievor to make up her hours of work between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. and has tried to accommodate the grievor’s concerns.

7Having considered the submissions of the parties I have decided to dismiss this grievance. There is insufficient rationale in the medical note to explain the strict requirement to continue her previous schedule. It is without question that numerous diabetics work full time hours without such rigid conditions. I cannot accept the physician’s opinion without more explicit details regarding the relationship between the grievor’s medical condition and her hours of work.

8The grievance is dismissed.