GSB#2010-0681

UNION#2010-0122-0002

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (McCool)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children and Youth Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Barry Stephens

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Frank Inglis and Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officers

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Nicholas Sapp Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

August 19, 2011.

Decision

1The parties agreed to present this grievance in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and this decision is without prejudice or precedent.

2The grievance in this case relates to a claim for compassionate leave. The grievor states that on March 17, 2010, after a number of problems related to plumbing work done at her house, her shower door shattered. Her lawyer advised her she should contact the plumber who had done the work and have that person effect repairs. She then called the employer and advised she needed the day off to deal with the problem. She applied for compassionate leave to deal with a domestic emergency. The employer denied the request, taking the position that the grievor could have found someone else to fix the shower, and that, even if she chose otherwise, the work was not the type emergency that required leave since no further damage was being done to the house while she was waiting for repairs.

3After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, I accept the employer’s view was reasonable in all of the circumstances. I am not persuaded that the plumbing work in question was of such a nature that there was an urgent and pressing need for compassionate leave. While I can appreciate the grievor’s frustration with the circumstances, I am required to balance the problem she faced with the requirement to apply compassionate leave to events that meet appropriate criteria. In the context of a household emergency it is reasonable to consider whether the dilemma faced by the employee poses imminent risk of greater harm or damage such that it requires immediate attention. In other words, the risks presented by the emergency should at least entail that it would be unreasonable to expect the employee to attend work. It is my conclusion that the circumstances of this case do not meet that test and the grievance is therefore dismissed.