GSB#2011-3826, 2011-3827, 2011-3828, 2011-3829, 2011-3830, 2011-3831, 2011-3832, 2011-3833, 2011-3834, 2011-3835, 2011-3836, 2011-3837, 2011-3838, 2011-3839, 2011-3840, 2011-3841, 2011-3842, 2011-3843, 2011-3844, 2011-3845, 2011-3846, 2011-3847, 2012-0151

UNION#2012-0234-0010, 2012-0234-0011, 2012-0234-0012, 2012-0234-0013, 2012-0234-0014, 2012-0234-0015, 2012-0234-0016, 2012-0234-0017, 2012-0234-0018, 2012-0234-0019, 2012-0234-0020, 2012-0234-0021, 2012-0234-0022, 2012-0234-0023, 2012-0234-0024, 2012-0234-0025, 2012-0234-0026, 2012-0234-0027, 2012-0234-0028, 2012-0234-0029, 2012-0234-0030, 2012-0234-0031, 2012-0234-0044

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Brown et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Barry Stephens

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Laura Josephson Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Swey Vishwanath Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Staff Relations Officer

HEARING

December 12, 2012.

Decision

1The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have agreed to a "True Mediation-Arbitration" process, wherein each provides the Vice-Chair with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, and is without prejudice or precedent.

2These grievances relate to a claim that the employer was improperly pro-rating vacation usage when employees take partial vacation day. However, after reviewing the evidence, I have concluded there is no violation, and that the employer's method of pro-rating is consistent with the collective agreement and policies respecting vacation time. It appears that some confusion was caused by a message on employee pay stubs that cited an example that did not cover all shift lengths. However, the employer's method cannot be faulted, and was properly applied with respect to all shift lengths. That being said, it must be allowed that there could be errors in the details (as opposed to method) that could affect individual grievors. Therefore, after reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, it is my conclusion that the main issue behind the grievances should be dismissed, but that the union shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this award to raise any individual errors with the employer. I remain seized to resolve any such issues.