GSB#2012-1336

UNION#2012-0230-0024

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Butler et al.)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Marilyn Nairn

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Archana Mathew Ontario Public Service Employee Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Felix Lau Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel

HEARING

March 7, 2013.

Decision

1This decision flows from an expedited med/arb process held on March 7, 2013. That process contemplates that the parties would attempt to resolve matters through mediation, failing which, they agreed that the Vice-Chair would determine the matter without formal proceedings. The parties agreed that any decision issued in this process does not constitute a precedent and is without prejudice to the positions of the parties in any other matter. They also agreed that any decision was to provide only brief reasons, if any. In doing so, the parties agreed to a process that will also expedite the release of any decision. The issues involved were not of a complex nature, and the parties agreed that ‘regular’ arbitration was not required.

2The grievors are all employed in a Customer Service Representative 2 (”CSR2”) classification. They work at Service Ontario and their home location is the Weber Street office in Kitchener. On occasion, and with little or no notice, they have been asked to work at the Duke Street office, also in Kitchener. This was to cover staff shortages in that office. During the tenure of a previous manager, the grievors felt that they did not have an option to decline this request. Current management takes the view that it is a request, not a requirement. If employees decline the request, the employer has more recently advised the Duke Street office that it cannot provide staffing support. Even more recently, staffing levels appear to have been modified such that these requests may become even less frequent. No Weber Street CSR2 has ever been disciplined for declining a request to attend work at Duke Street.

3The grievance claims that the employer must provide 120 hours notice of this change to their work location, failing which, the first shift must be paid at an overtime rate. The grievors rely on Article UN5.1 of the collective agreement. That provision speaks to changes in the posted shift schedule. That is a reference to hours of work, that is, time, not location of the work. The hours of work of any employee asked to work at Duke Street are not altered. That interpretation is supported by the language in Article UN4.1, which refers to a scheduled shift by reference to when the shift commences and ends, a reference to time, not place.

4I find therefore that Article UN5.1 has no application in the circumstance of a change of work location. This grievance is therefore dismissed.