GSB#2010-2449, 2011-2367

UNION#2010-0582-0054, 2011-0582-0050

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Gareau)

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

Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Sia Romanidis Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

December 13, 2011.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Toronto East Detention 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.

2Conrad Gareau is a Correctional Officer who filed two grievances regarding denial of three special leave requests for October 21, 2010, December 1, 2010 and April 4, 2011. These days were requested to replace days that were previously considered “denied absences”. He claimed his requests regarding the absences were “mishandled” and discriminatory.

3During the period between January of 2010 and November of 2011, the grievor had nineteen occasions of denied absences. That is to say, he called into the workplace shortly before he was scheduled to report to work and declared that he was unable to do so for reasons that had nothing to do with sick leave.

4It appears that in each case after he returned he asked for some substitution for the denied absence. Indeed, some of these absences were changed to special leaves days while others were substituted with vacation days or lieu days. According to the Employer’s documents, in some instances the grievor did not explain the need for absence beyond “family issues”. On other occasions little or no information was noted as having been provided.

5I saw no evidence of discrimination or mishandling of requests in the circumstances set out before me. Given the lack of information provided to the Employer, I cannot fault the handling of these requests.

6It is trite to say that unless an employee is ill or otherwise excused from the workplace by way of an approved leave of absence of some sort, the Employer is entitled to expect that employees will work in accordance with the schedule.

7I must dismiss these grievances. As I discussed with the grievor during our med/arb session, if he has need of some accommodation as the result of his family status, he should make a formal request and meet with the Employer to discuss the matter. It is not in his interest to rely upon requesting special and compassionate time off with little or no notice.