GSB#2011-3612

UNION# 2012-0368-0017

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Butsch)

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

Sean Milloy Ministry of Government Services Employee Relations Division Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

May 3, 2012.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional Centre 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.

2Ms. Autumn Butsch filed a grievance alleging she should have been paid call back pay for her actions on January 6, 2012. She stated that she had worked night shift and after she got up from sleeping she learned that she had a message to call her supervisor at work.

3She returned the call and spoke to her manager. She was told that she had been called earlier to ask if she had gone home that morning with keys. By the time this conversation was held, her manager had located the missing keys.

4It is for this effort that Ms. Butsch asserts she should receive four hours of pay at the rate of time and one half. The Employer contended that this is not “work” as that is set out in the call back provisions of the Collective Agreement.

5I agree with the Employer. In my view, the communication that took place involving the grievor on January 6, 2012 was not “work”. The Employer initially called because it was thought that the grievor might have inadvertently left the jail with keys. It goes without saying that loss of keys is a significant issue in a correctional facility and it is not surprising that the grievor might have received such a call if the keys cannot be located.

6However, a short telephone discussion such as this is not “work” as considered by the call back provisions of the Collective Agreement. She was not asked to perform any of her normal job functions or to give advice.

7The grievance is denied.