GSB#2010-2258

UNION#2010-0502-0052

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Figliano)

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, Rose Figliano, has been employed in the Correspondence Services Unit of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, as a Correspondence Clerk since 1974. The 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. She grieves that the Employer has violated Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the collective agreement by imposing unreasonable working arrangements on her that have caused her undue stress. She asks that her previous hours of work from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 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 grievor had been working the earlier hours in order to attend to a serious heath issue. When the Employer decided to require all employees to work from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. she found herself in the position of asking for compassionate leave in order to care for her brother who will be undergoing treatment for cancer. As his primary caregiver she will be required to take him to his treatments and doctor appointments. If she was off work at 3:30 p.m. she could manage these appointments after work. By working until 4:30 p.m. she will be unable to get to the doctor’s office and will be required to take time off work. She likens her relationship to her brother as analogous us to a parent/child situation and claims it is a breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code to refuse to accommodate her. In order to meet her commitments the grievor has requested compassionate leave but really only needs time to attend appointments.

4The 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 and a half 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.

5It also notes that when she asked for accommodation for personal reasons, the Employer did what it could for her. This situation does not involve her but her brother and the Employer is not required to accommodate her in these circumstances. It is prepared to consider her request for time off on an individual basis.

6Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view this grievance should be dismissed. The grievor’s request for accommodation does not relate to her personal need for accommodation but rather her brother’s need for her assistance. There is no proof that there is no one else who could assist her with her caregiving responsibilities.

7The grievance is dismissed.