GSB#2011-0912, 2012-0743

OPSEU#2011-0290-0031, 2012-0290-0009

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Services Employees Union (Dexter et al)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Barry Fisher

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

July 17, 18, 19, 2012.

Decision

1This arbitration arose out of a mediation/arbitration process conducted at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. The parties agreed that this process would be conducted in an informal manner and that if no settlement could be achieved, that I was permitted to issue a decision based on the information that I derived from the mediation sessions.

2I am satisfied that I obtained enough information during the mediation process so that I could render an arbitration award. At no time during the mediation did either party tell me something that I was not permitted to tell the other side and I made my best efforts to share with each side what the other side had said during the mediation.

3This case involves the application of Article 45.1 of the Collective Agreement, which reads as follows:

ARTICLE 45 - LEAVE CREDITS REPORTS

(FXT, SE, FPT, RPT)

45.1 As soon as practicable following the end of each quarter, every employee shall be advised of the number of vacation and attendance credits to which he or she is entitled.

4The Ministry admits that that they did not comply with this provision. Apparently this was a Ministry wide problem, affecting all employees. The problem arose from the introduction of a new computer tracking system for leave credits. As usually happens with new computer systems, this one had major bugs in it so that when the reports came out, they were often inaccurate. Sometimes they over reported the number of credits that an employee had and sometimes they underreported the available credits.

5Needless to say, employees are very concerned about how many credits they have in their bank. They need this information to be accurate so that they can plan their lives. The essence of this grievance is that the employees had to spend considerable time reviewing their own records and comparing it to the Ministry’s reports to determine if the Article 45.1 reports were accurate. This also involved corresponding with Ministry payroll personnel, in some cases on multiple occasions.

6I heard from two of the grievors, Ms. Cunningham and Mr. Dexter. There were 11 grievors in all. Based on their evidence I am satisfied that there was some amount of personal time spent by the individual grievors in dealing with this issue, which would not have been necessary if the Ministry had complied with Article 45.1. I am also satisfied that the grievors spent considerable other time working on this issue, but that during this time they were at work and thus were already being paid.

7Both the Union and the Ministry requested that I award the same number of hours to each grievor, regardless of the individual differences that undoubtedly existed between the members.

8I therefore award each grievor one hour of pay, to be paid within 60 days of this award.

9I retain jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of this award.