GSB#2011-3316

UNION#2011-0252-0020

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Marlow)

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

Greg Gledhill Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Staff Relations Officer

HEARING

March 6 & 7, 2013.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Niagara Detention Centre agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. Some of the grievances were settled through that process. However, a few grievances 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.

2On October 8, 2011, Ms. Judy Marlow requested three compassionate leave days in order to attend at a family vacation that was scheduled for early December. She made clear in her request the extenuating circumstances surrounding her request.

3The Employer denied her request shortly thereafter saying that her request “did not meet the requirements” needed for approval.

4The grievor was not satisfied with this response and asked for a special meeting with the Superintendent to discuss her request. That meeting was held on October 25, 2011 and shortly thereafter the Superintendent informed the grievor that he had considered her circumstances, the collective agreement provision and spoken with human resource consultants. He upheld the original decision to grant the leave request without pay.

5The Employer submitted that this request was denied after taking various considerations into account, not the least of which was the period of time between the granting of the request and the departure date. The Employer was of the view that the grievor has sufficient time to make various other arrangements to allow her to attend a family matter that was not of an emergent nature.

6While I have much sympathy for the reasons surrounding the grievor’s request, I am not convinced that in this case the Employer can be found to have violated the collective agreement. There was no evidence or arbitrariness or bad faith. Further, the Employer met with the grievor to fully discuss the reasons for her request. As stated by Vice Chair Johnson in Re The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health and Long Term Care) & OPSEU – Thurman GSB#0698/01, (Johnson), I am reluctant to question the correctness of this decision having found that the Employer met “certain minimum standards of justice”.

7While I may well have come to a different decision regarding the granting of the request, I cannot find that the Employer has violated the collective agreement.

8Accordingly, the grievance is denied.