7b:I[968242,["/_next/static/chunks/0b_72f-e25kv0.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/2dqzcpp0iv_65.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/2-gzvss-l6hsb.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/0_th5qbdbp7fv.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/3pxtaj7c8rs55.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/1fr-v8sx5ap_7.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/2_zpbictxcli5.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/2yad5-4ibvk0m.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/0rilgbl3o5bv-.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/21ewgwknlgeas.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/2ov37zop16n27.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/0tof0ca8-y5uc.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/3sl10ogzeq_4f.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/1oye9k9wdtez4.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/2qpeh4lw4hds4.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/23d_j_uhqaepb.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/2qthtgzpqespl.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/2ey3x-m-xrf30.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/1l1-kbc27ddmr.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/06sx6w4g9hwyu.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/3abc7e_uryvi3.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/0257p7bsqes76.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/0hfvn4ww_ph62.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/15-zu1noqxrht.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/0ovufyqn1ws-o.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/08dzzn4r58_fn.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/0ce8qgl2n3g61.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57","/_next/static/chunks/3au34nv6rkr0s.js?dpl=dpl_CievjEumBe3mPjEymp3yF72YQb57"],"SidebarDataSetter"] 7c:T64ed,GSB#2010-2499 UNION#2010-0108-0048 (additional file numbers listed in Appendix A attached) ## IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD # BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pinkney et al.) ## 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 Jane Letton Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel FOR THE EMPLOYER George Parris Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING July 17, 2013 Decision [1] On January 11, 2010, the parties at Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (“EMDC”) signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Compressed Work Week. [2] The relevant provisions of that agreement read as follows: This compressed work week agreement is made in accordance with Article 16 (Local and Ministry Negotiations) of the Central Collective Agreement and Article COR2 (Hours of Work), Appendix COR9 (Rollover of Fixed Term Correctional Officers) of the Correctional Bargaining Unit Collective Agreement, between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Crown in Right of Ontario represented by Management Board of Cabinet. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, all articles of the Central and Correctional Bargaining Unit Collective Agreements Apply to employees covered by this agreement. 1. All Correctional Officer compressed work week schedules for the institution shall end on February 28, 2010 and new approved schedules shall take effect on March 1, 2010. 2. All approved schedules shall be posted by January 15, 2010. 3. Line selections shall be submitted to the scheduling department and shall be started on January 18, 2010. 4. Line selection shall be done based on seniority (continuous service dates). 5. A scheduling committee member and the Local 108 scheduling officer shall be involved in the line selection process. 6. Notices to staff of line assignments shall be posted no later than February 8, 2010. 7. All Correctional Officer positions shall be available for line selections. 8. Those failing to make a selection will be assigned to a line and schedule by the Scheduling Manager after three attempts have been made by the scheduling office to contact the employee. 9. A classified (full time equivalent) complement change shall cause a review of the schedules between the two parties to review any changes. 10. When permanent vacancies occur in the compressed work week schedule, they will be posted within 14 days of the permanent vacancy and will be filled on a seniority (continuous service date) basis within 30 days of the vacancy. 11. If a permanent line is vacated for the purposes of a temporary assignment/secondment for a period of 366 days, this line will be considered vacant and posted within 14 days of the vacancy and will be filled on a seniority (continuous service date) basis within 30 days. 12. This agreement, and the attached schedules, is based on the following identified correctional officer positions: (a) One hundred and forty seven (147) classified correctional officer positions as identified in the employers staffing model. (b) It is understood by both parties that the MERC agreement of the Resource Position Management (RPM) for Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre consisting of twenty (20) positions have been collapsed into the main schedules and is apart (sic) of the one hundred and forty-seven (147) classified positions, as outlined in the MERC agreement dated 12^th of May 2009. Every effort will be made to backfill the 147 lines on a daily basis. (c) The parties’ agreement of an additional fifteen (15) correctional officer positions (located in the Utility Schedule) as per the Memorandum of Agreement dated 12^th of May 2009. (d) Due to three vacancies occurring after the 12^th of May 2009, the additional 15 positions have been reduced to 12 in accordance with the MERC agreement dated November 27, 2009. This is a total of one hundred and fifty nine (159) positions available for the line selection process. As permanent vacancies continue to occur, lines from the Utility Schedule will continue to be eliminated. 13.This agreement does not prejudice the parties in any way in relation to the total level of Correctional Officers positions at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre. 14.In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement dated 12^th of May 2009, the following process will be used to reassign officers in the utility schedule to the Budget Allocation Model/BAM (main) schedule that: (a) Correctional Officers assigned to the Utility Schedule shall be reassigned first to fill permanent and temporary vacancies created in the BAM schedules. It is the understanding of both parties that vacancies in the Utility Schedule shall not necessarily create additional posts requiring backfill. [3] The parties provided a schedule (Schedule A) that was referred to in the Memorandum of Agreement. Schedule A has one hundred and fifty nine (159) one-week schedules. These are broken down into 19 Platoons and appear to cover all units within EMDC. There are 149 positions in the first 17 Platoons. The 18^th and 19^th Platoons are titled “Attrition” and have twelve positions in total. These last two Platoons are referred to in the Memorandum of Agreement as the “Utility Schedule”. [4] Duty rosters developed after the Memorandum of Agreement was signed were also provided. It was agreed that these Duty Rosters were the operationalization of the work. The final exhibit was a fifteen page document entitled “Vision Statement for New Schedule Routines” which was developed by the Employer with input from two senior staff members of the bargaining unit and ultimately signed by both the Superintendent of EMDC and the President of the Local. [5] The first thirteen platoons on Schedule A have Unit assignments noted. There are no such assignments provided for Platoons 14 through 19. However, the Platoons 12 through 19 are expressly titled. For example, Platoon 14 is Front Door and Platoon 16 is Female Segregation & Admitting and Discharge. [6] According to the Union, the Employer staffed the institution in compliance with the Memorandum of Agreement until approximately November of 2010. The Union alleged that in November of 2010 the Employer began scheduling in a manner that was inconsistent with the Memorandum of Agreement. It became apparent that there was a fundamental dispute regarding the meaning of the Memorandum with respect to the necessary minimum level of staffing of Correctional Officers (“COs”). Grievances were filed (attached Appendix A) alleging a breach of this Agreement and as a result, this Board met with the parties in an effort to mediate a resolution. There were issues that arose during mediation regarding particulars and disclosure to enable the parties to understand the scope of the disagreement. It eventually became evident that litigation of the matter would be required and the parties next addressed a process to efficiently arbitrate this dispute. [7] It was agreed by the parties that two questions should be posed to this Board. The first question is “Does the Compressed Work Week Agreement require that there are 147 Correctional Officer positions which translates into a specific number of Correctional officers at the jail per day? The second question is “Does the Compressed Work Week Agreement require that all 147 Correctional Officer positions be within the building for all of the assigned shifts – that is to say – not on an outside of the building assignment?” UNION SUBMISSIONS [8] The Union argued that the matter is fairly straightforward. The Memorandum of Agreement clears states at paragraph 12 that there shall be at least one hundred and forty seven classified Correctional Officer positions in the Employer’s staffing model each day at EMDC. [9] Ms. Letton, for the Union, noted that according to Schedule A, which is attached and therefore forms part of the Memorandum of Agreement, these 147 CO positions are scheduled into seventeen different platoons covering all inmate unit areas of EMDC. Both the Memorandum and Schedule A provide that there are twelve additional CO positions. Schedule A provides that these additional 12 positions are set out as an 18^th and 19^th Platoon and are entitled “Attrition”. Therefore, it is apparent that the parties recognized and agreed that there would be a minimum number of 147 COs scheduled each day. It was understood that the additional 12 CO positions found in Platoons 18 and 19 might be eliminated over time but at no time would the total number of CO positions within EMDC be lower than 147. [10] The Union reviewed Schedule A noting that it sets out the location and position for each CO position. For Platoons 1 through 13 there are a number of units or areas set out. This means that the CO working in one of those Platoons might be assigned to any of the areas set out in that particular section. COs assigned scheduled in Platoons 14 through 17 have a more limited area of assignment because they are the specialized units. For example, a CO working in Platoon 14 will only be assigned to work at the Front Door while a CO scheduled in Platoon 16 will be assigned to work in only in either Female Segregation or Female Admitting and Discharge. Platoons 18 and 19 have no work assignment noted. This fact underscore the parties’ agreement that 147 COs would be scheduled each day and there would be a second category of CO positions which would be eliminated over time. [11] The Union reviewed the process set out in paragraphs one through eleven of the Memorandum for COs to select their choice of line assignment. It is apparent that when the Agreement is considered as a whole, it contemplates a minimum of 147 CO positions to be filled. Each of the 147 lines on Schedule A is to be assigned to an individual CO. The 147 positions plus the twelve additional “attrition” positions make up Schedule A. [12] The Union submitted that this Board must give the language of the Memorandum its plain and ordinary meaning. It is clearly stated that Schedule A is attached and that means that it forms part of the parties’ agreement. Schedule A is not a collateral document and it reveals that only positions in excess of 147 can be eliminated and not scheduled each day. [13] Regarding the second question, it was the Union’s view that there is nothing in the Memorandum that would allow the Employer to remove the CO from their assigned post and have them work outside of the building. To be clear, it is not the Union’s position that the Employer cannot assign COs to perform escort duties. However, it is the Employer’s obligation to assign a CO who is not one of the 147 COs assigned to work as set out in Schedule A. [14] The Union asserted that all of the assignments set out in Schedule A are within the actual EMDC buildings. Accordingly, the Employer cannot re-assign one of the 147 to do work not contemplated on the schedule, such as outside escort duty. It can be seen in the Vision Statement for New Schedule Routines that the parties put their minds to clarifying the duties of the positions set out in Schedule A and all of those duties are performed within the four walls of EMDC. This document buttresses the Union’s contention that there are to be 147 positions inside EMDC each day and if one of those officers is sent outside because of operational necessity – then the Employer must make every effort to backfill that position. It was urged that “every effort” is a significant obligation. It is not sufficient for the Employer to make some vague attempt to find a replacement. “Every effort” mandates that the Employer will turn its mind and resources to ensuring that each of the 147 positions within EMDC are backfilled on a daily basis. If an officer is out of the building due to escort duties, sick leave or vacation, that vacant position must be filled by another CO. [15] The obligation to backfill the 147 CO positions is ongoing and does not diminish by virtue of unforeseen circumstance, according to the Union. Whether an absence is planned there is still an ongoing obligation to backfill 147 CO positions each day. [16] In closing the Union noted that the Vision Statement for New Schedule Routines states clearly in its preamble that that the “paramount consideration in how we conduct our affairs is the safety and security of individual officers and managers.” That safety is ensured when the agreed upon staffing level is maintained. EMPLOYER SUBMISSIONS [17] The Employer submitted that the Schedule A before this Board is “not carved in stone”. Further, there is nothing in the Memorandum or the Schedule or the Duty Rosters that prohibits or restricts the Employer’s ability to assign tasks to the COs that need to be performed. Paragraph 12 does not contain language providing that COs can only perform the duties related to their own post. [18] The Memorandum of Agreement is an agreement between the parties regarding the working of a Compressed Work Week. According to the Employer, it is not an agreement about what work the COs will perform. The Memorandum should not be interpreted in a fashion that is inconsistent with its underlying purpose. It is noteworthy that paragraph 9 of the Memorandum provides for a mandatory review of the Schedule in the event that there is a classified (full-time equivalent) complement change. [19] Mr. Parris, for the Employer, noted that the Schedule for COs did not change after the Duty Rosters were developed. [20] The Employer asserted that because there is no definition of the word “backfill” in paragraph 12, it is necessary for this Board to provide direction in this regard. However, it was urged that “backfill” as set out in paragraph 12 does not mean that the Employer has to replace a CO who is absent from her post for a limited period of time or when the CO is away from their post but otherwise performing CO work. The term “backfill” should be interpreted in paragraph 12 as it is meant in paragraph 14 – that is to say - in those instances when COs are absent from work. [21] The Employer submitted that the Union’s position regarding the need to backfill for those on Escort Duty makes little sense. Escort Duty is, by all accounts, the work of COs. There is no need to backfill a CO who is working. Backfilling is bringing in additional staff to do the work of some one who is not at work as scheduled. [22] Mr. Parris suggested that the paragraphs in the Memorandum that provide numbers of staff are there to assist the parties in the structuring of the schedules and that every effort will be made to backfill them when they are not at work. Backfilling a position is not synonymous with providing relief. It is difficult to understand how the Union can ask this Board to decide that if a CO is absent from the workplace for an hour on a Hospital (or any other) Escort, the Employer must replace them with another CO that had not been scheduled to work that shift. Such an interpretation is unreasonable and unworkable. It is certainly an interpretation that makes little sense in the context of how an institution works. [23] The Employer said that in considering the phrase “every effort” this Board should take into account business efficacy and efficiency. It would make no sense for the Employer to be obligated to replace a CO who is absent from the workplace performing outside Escort duties at the end of their shift. It would be administratively ridiculous for the Employer to be forced to ask a fixed term CO to work an amount of time that theoretically might be less than an hour. UNION REPLY SUBMISSIONS [24] Regarding the matter of institutional or internal escorts, Ms. Letton submitted that according to the duties set out in the Vision Statement, each unit has a General Duty Officer who is assigned such duties. Accordingly, if all 147 positions are filled then those internal escorts are clearly covered and not at issue. [25] The issue of the need to relieve for the last thirty minutes of a shift is a matter that goes to remedy and not to the merits of this dispute, the Union urged. DECISION [26] There was an issue between the parties as to whether the Provincial Escort Duty Policy would assist in the interpretation of this matter. A process was determined at the hearing to allow for written submission regarding this matter but it was ultimately determined that the Escort Policy document would be of no assistance. [27] Further, there was an issue between the parties as to what, if anything, should be made of the fact that a few of the 147 lines have no work scheduled within the seven day period. This Board told the parties that if evidence was needed regarding this issue for the purposes of this decision, it would be requested. It is not. [28] As noted above, Schedule A is a schedule that sets out the days each CO is to work. It is broken down into nineteen (19) platoons with the final two being assigned – as agreed by the parties – as Attrition. It is to be recalled that these two final Platoons are referred to in the Memorandum of Agreement as the Utility Schedule. [29] Schedule A is a document that sets out the day and time that the 147 classified COs will attend at work. It identifies the areas that members of each platoon will be assigned throughout their schedule. [30] The Duty Rosters appear to be the work assignment sheets. There is one for each day of the week which is broken down into the various units with lines for the names of COs working various shifts. [31] The first question posed to this Board is “Does the Compressed Work Week Agreement require that there are 147 Correctional Officer positions which translates into a specific number of Correctional Officers at the jail per day? [32] After consideration, I am of the view that the answer to this question is yes. The Memorandum of Agreement makes clear that there will be a schedule based on 147 classified CO positions “as identified in the employers staffing model”. The parties went on to explain what that number included (twenty CO positions which “had been collapsed into the main schedule”) and what the number did not include (an additional 12 CO positions “located in the Utility Schedule”). Further it was agreed that as permanent vacancies “continue to occur, lines from the Utility Schedule will continue to be eliminated”. These are the positions that the parties refer to as “Attrition” on Schedule A. [33] It seems apparent that the parties agreed to develop a schedule with 147 lines that would be filled by 147 classified COs and that “every effort will be made to backfill the 147 lines on a daily basis.” In my view, this means that if any of the 147 COs scheduled to work on any particular day are absent from the work and otherwise unavailable to work, the Employer shall make every effort to replace them. For the purposes of this decision, absences would include (but not necessarily be limited to) situations such as sick leave, vacation and leaves of absence. [34] Though not specifically asked, it is useful to note that the obligation to attempt to backfill an absent CO is not insignificant. The phrase “every effort” is used and should be given its plain meaning. It is difficult in the abstract to define such a phrase. No doubt a consideration of whether every effort was made would be undertaken against a specific factual context. However, there seems little doubt that a genuine effort should be made that goes far beyond a perfunctory attempt. [35] I am further convinced of the Union’s position by reviewing paragraph 14(a) of the Memorandum. In that provision the parties agree that vacancies in the Utility Schedule (that being the section of Schedule A referred to as “Attrition”) “shall not necessarily create additional posts requiring backfill.” It would appear that the parties wanted to make a distinction between the 147 classified COs whose absence should be backfilled and those COs on the Utility Schedule whose absence need not necessitate backfilling. In my view, this paragraph underscores the fact that there is an obligation to backfill the 147 classified CO positions. [36] Addressing the second question, I am of the view that the Employer’s submissions must prevail. While I accept that the Vision Statement sets out tasks usually undertaken by COs, there is nothing that would lead me to find that this document overrides the Employer’s inherent right to manage the workforce. Indeed, the preamble of the Memorandum of Agreement states that unless otherwise stated in the Agreement, the Collective Agreement applies. There is nothing in the Memorandum that restricts the Employer’s ability to assign work. Although I understand the Union’s assertion that the Vision Statement is a comprehensive and determinative document, I must disagree. Indeed, it does not form part of the Memorandum and therefore can not be relied upon to fetter the Employer’s authority to assign work. [37] It was suggested by the Union that the Memorandum obliges the Employer to make every effort to backfill 147 lines on a daily basis and that includes ensuring all of the scheduled COs must be working inside the four walls of the institution for every moment of their scheduled working hours. I think not. In my view, if the parties intended such a particular result, they would have said so and they did not. Indeed, the parties referred to effort being made to backfill occurring on “a daily basis”, not an hourly basis. [38] Further, backfilling is a phrase often used by these parties. I have seen nothing in any of the exhibits or Collective Agreement that would lead me to find that the Employer is obliged to provide an additional – otherwise unscheduled - employee to replace one of the 147 scheduled COs who is going to be away from his/her post or the workplace performing CO duties for a matter of minutes or hours. [39] Further days of hearing are scheduled. I remain seized. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 4^th day of November 2013. APPENDIX A GSB File Number Union File Number 2010-2499 2010-0108-0048 2010-2500 2010-0108-0049 2010-2501 2010-0108-0050 2010-2502 2010-0108-0051 2010-2503 2010-0108-0052 2010-2504 2010-0108-0053 2010-2825 2011-0108-0005 2010-2826 2011-0108-0006 2010-2827 2011-0108-0007 2010-2828 2011-0108-0008 2010-2829 2011-0108-0009 2010-2830 2011-0108-0010 2010-2831 2011-0108-0011 2010-2832 2011-0108-0012 2010-2833 2011-0108-0013 2010-2834 2011-0108-0014 2010-2835 2011-0108-0015 2010-2836 2011-0108-0016 2010-2837 2011-0108-0017 2010-2880 2011-0108-0018 2010-2881 2011-0108-0019 2010-2882 2011-0108-0020 2010-2883 2011-0108-0021 2010-2884 2011-0108-0022 2010-2885 2011-0108-0023 2010-2886 2011-0108-0024 2010-2887 2011-0108-0025 2010-2888 2011-0108-0026 2010-2889 2011-0108-0027 2010-2890 2011-0108-0028 2010-2891 2011-0108-0029 2010-2892 2011-0108-0030 2010-2893 2011-0108-0031 2010-2894 2011-0108-0032 2010-2923 2011-0108-0034 2011-0251 2011-0108-0037 2011-0252 2011-0108-0038 2011-0253 2011-0108-0039 2011-0254 2011-0108-0040 2011-0255 2011-0108-0041 2011-0256 2011-0108-0042 2011-0257 2011-0108-0043 2011-0258 2011-0108-0044 2011-0259 2011-0108-0045 2011-0260 2011-0108-0046 2011-0261 2011-0108-0047 2011-0262 2011-0108-0048 APPENDIX A GSB File Number Union File Number 2011-0263 2011-0108-0049 2011-0264 2011-0108-0050 2011-0265 2011-0108-0051 2011-0266 2011-0108-0052 2011-0267 2011-0108-0053 2011-0268 2011-0108-0054 2011-0269 2011-0108-0055 2011-0270 2011-0108-0057 2011-0271 2011-0108-0058 2011-0272 2011-0108-0059 2011-0273 2011-0108-0060 2011-0274 2011-0108-0061 2011-0275 2011-0108-0062 2011-0562 2011-0108-0067 2011-0563 2011-0108-0068 2011-0564 2011-0108-0069 2011-0565 2011-0108-0070 2011-0566 2011-0108-0071 2011-0567 2011-0108-0072 2011-0582 2011-0108-0073 2011-0598 2011-0108-0056 2011-0615 2011-0108-0076 2011-0636 2011-0108-0077 2011-0637 2011-0108-0078 2011-0638 2011-0108-0079 2011-0660 2011-0108-0080 2011-0661 2011-0108-0081 2011-0662 2011-0108-0082 2011-0663 2011-0108-0083 2011-0664 2011-0108-0084 2011-0665 2011-0108-0085 2011-0666 2011-0108-0086 2011-0667 2011-0108-0087 2011-0668 2011-0108-0088 2011-0669 2011-0108-0089 2011-0670 2011-0108-0090 2011-0671 2011-0108-0091 2011-0672 2011-0108-0092 2011-0673 2011-0108-0093 2011-0752 2011-0108-0094 2011-0753 2011-0108-0095 2011-0754 2011-0108-0096 2011-0755 2011-0108-0098 2011-1039 2011-0108-0101 2011-1040 2011-0108-0102 2011-1041 2011-0108-0103 2011-1043 2011-0108-0105 2011-1044 2011-0108-0106 APPENDIX A GSB File Number Union File Number 2011-1045 2011-0108-0107 2011-1046 2011-0108-0108 2011-1047 2011-0108-0109 2011-1048 2011-0108-0110 2011-1062 2011-0108-0097 2011-2068 2011-0108-0112 2011-2071 2011-0108-0115 2011-2072 2011-0108-0116 2011-2073 2011-0108-0117 2011-2074 2011-0108-0118 2011-2075 2011-0108-0119 2011-2076 2011-0108-0120 2011-2077 2011-0108-0121 2011-2078 2011-0108-0122 2011-2079 2011-0108-0123 2011-2080 2011-0108-0124 2011-2081 2011-0108-0125 2011-2082 2011-0108-0126 2011-2083 2011-0108-0127 2011-2084 2011-0108-0128 2011-2085 2011-0108-0129 2011-2134 2011-0108-0131 2011-2666 2011-0108-0135 2011-2846 2011-0108-013431:["$","$L7b",null,{"caseData":{"id":199349,"body":"$7c","year":2013,"court":{"id":26,"name":"Grievance Settlement Board","slug":"ogsb","abbreviation":"OGSB"},"issues":[{"id":405681,"outcome":"granted — the agreement requires 147 classified CO positions to be scheduled and backfilled if absent","description":"Whether the Compressed Work Week Agreement requires 147 Correctional Officer positions to be scheduled per day.","issue_index":0},{"id":405682,"outcome":"dismissed — the employer retains the right to assign work, including outside escort duties","description":"Whether the agreement requires all 147 Correctional Officer positions to remain within the building for all assigned shifts.","issue_index":1}],"judges":[],"source":"https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onpgb/doc/2013/2013canlii84300/2013canlii84300.html","lawyers":[],"parties":[{"id":25973,"name":"Ontario Public Service Employees Union","role":"applicant"},{"id":124455,"name":"The Crown in Right of Ontario","role":"respondent"}],"summary":"The Union grieved the Employer's scheduling practices under a Compressed Work Week Agreement at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre. The parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine two questions regarding staffing levels. The Board held that the agreement requires the Employer to schedule 147 classified Correctional Officer positions per day and make every effort to backfill them if absent. However, the Board found that the agreement does not restrict the Employer's management right to assign those officers to duties outside the building, such as escort duties, during their shifts.","citation":"Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pinkney) v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2013 OGSB minicounsel 143","court_id":26,"keywords":["backfill","compressed work week","correctional officers","escort duty","management rights","staffing model"],"province":{"id":1,"name":"Ontario","abbreviation":"ON"},"one_liner":"Employer must schedule 147 correctional officers daily but retains management right to assign outside duties.","case_types":["trial"],"date_heard":"2013-07-17","cited_cases":[],"disposition":"other","has_dissent":false,"legal_tests":[],"panel_split":false,"source_slug":"/en/on/onpgb/doc/2013/2013canlii84300/2013canlii84300.html","times_cited":0,"areas_of_law":[{"id":10010,"name":"Employment and Labour Law","slug":"employment-and-labour-law"}],"file_numbers":[{"id":199193,"file_number":"GSB#2010-2499"}],"party_string":"Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Pinkney et al.) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)","tax_metadata":null,"document_kind":null,"fact_patterns":[{"id":187024,"name":"backfilling positions","slug":"backfillingpositions"},{"id":38854,"name":"compressed work week","slug":"compressed-work-week"},{"id":46681,"name":"correctional officers","slug":"correctional-officers"},{"id":167140,"name":"escort duty","slug":"escortduty"},{"id":154608,"name":"staffing levels","slug":"staffinglevels"}],"hearing_dates":["2013-07-17"],"canonical_year":2013,"date_judgement":"2013-11-04","decisionMakers":[{"id":6911,"name":"Felicity D. Briggs","role":"sole","slug":"felicitydbriggs","title":"Vice-Chair"}],"external_links":[{"id":217956,"url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onpgb/doc/2013/2013canlii84300/2013canlii84300.html","label":"Source","domain":"www.canlii.org","url_path":"/en/on/onpgb/doc/2013/2013canlii84300/2013canlii84300.html"}],"noindex_reason":null,"citation_scheme":"minicounsel","decision_number":84300,"final_judgement":"The Board answered the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative.","representatives":[{"kind":"lawyer","name":"George Parris","role":"for the Employer","lawyerId":119011,"lawyerSlug":"george-parris","lawyerUsername":"georgeparris"},{"kind":"lawyer","name":"Jane Letton","role":"for the Union","lawyerId":85381,"lawyerSlug":"jane-letton","lawyerUsername":"janeletton"}],"source_language":"unknown","expert_witnesses":[],"canonical_path_id":"m143","financial_outcomes":null,"parties_anonymized":false,"statutory_provisions":[],"certification_outcome":"not_certification","legislation_citations":[]},"tocEntries":[{"id":"in-the-matter-of-an-arbitration","text":"IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION","level":2,"children":[]},{"id":"union","text":"Union","level":2,"children":[]}],"relationships":{"same_proceeding":[],"appeal":[]},"podcastInitial":{"kind":"none"},"citingTreatmentSummary":[]}] 34:E{"digest":"NEXT_REDIRECT;replace;/ogsb/2013/m143;308;"}