GSB#2009-0755

UNION#2009-0368-0059

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rae)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Scott Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Gary Wylie Ministry of Government Services Centre for Employee Relations Eastern Regional Office Staff Relations Officer

HEARING

January 23, 2013.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Central East Detention Centre agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation-Arbitration process wherein each party provides the Vice-Chair with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities they respectively rely 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.

2The grievor is a Correctional Officer who, through this grievance, asserts his Continuous Service Date (CSD) should be adjusted to include overtime hours that he had worked while he was an unclassified officer.

3The grievance is based on the claim that in calculating the CSDs of certain Correctional Officers, the Employer improperly included the overtime hours worked by those individuals when they were unclassified officers at the Millbrook Correctional Centre. The grievor requests that he be "granted the same luxury of using any overtime hours" which he worked while he was an unclassified officer toward the calculation of his CSD.

4Given the passage of time, it may well have been difficult to determine whether in fact the Employer improperly calculated the CSDs of certain employees who worked as unclassified officers at the Millbrook Correctional Centre. That being said, even if it were established that the Employer had improperly credited those employees with the overtime hours worked, that fact would not, in any way, provide justification to treat the grievor in a likewise improper manner. For the grievance to succeed there would have to be a basis to find that the grievor's CSD was improperly calculated.

5Since there is no basis to suggest that the collective agreement has been violated, the grievance is dismissed.

6The grievor, however, did make reference to another situation regarding the calculation of his CSD. Apparently, the Employer, upon a review, determined that 280 additional hours should be credited towards the grievor's CSD, yet the grievor claims the inclusion of those hours had a negative rather than a positive impact in terms of his CSD. It is recommended that a representative of the Employer review with the grievor the calculation of his CSD with respect to the crediting of those additional 280 hours.