GSB#2010-1782, 2011-0913

UNION# 2010-0247-0006, 2011-0247-0004

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Fraser)

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

Scott Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

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

HEARING

January 8, 2013.

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Brantford Jail 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, these two 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.

2Mr. James Fraser is a Correctional Officer who filed two grievances regarding overtime.

3The first grievance alleged that he was not assigned an overtime shift in accordance with the HPRO protocol because the work at issue was given to a fixed term employee. By way of remedy he asked for twelve hours of overtime pay as well as fixed shifts "be clawed back once they work forty hours."

4The Board was provided the scheduling documentation HPRO information for the shift at issue. I accept that the overtime shift at issue in this grievance was worked by another classified Correctional Officer and not a fixed term employee. There were fixed term employees working during that particular shift but they had been scheduled to work in advance and at straight time hours. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed.

5The second grievance also alleged an HPRO violation. It was asserted that the Employer withdrew an offer of overtime work. It was uncontested by the Employer that the grievor was called and offered an overtime shift. As he was not at home a message was left. Sometime later he called to accept the shift. The grievor alleged he was told that the shift was given to someone else but the Correctional Officers at work that evening were told that no one agreed to work.

6In any event, the issue before this Board is whether the Employer can withdraw an offer of overtime. I am of the view that a withdrawal of a shift, that is to say that no one is improperly assigned to work overtime on a shift, is not a violation of HPRO. Generally a remedy under HPRO is given to remedy the case where the Employer mistakenly gives the overtime work to another. That is not the case here. There was no overtime shift assigned. Speaking generally, Management has the right to determine if the shift needs an overtime assignment.

7I understand why the grievor filed the grievance in the first instance if he was led to believe that some other Correctional Officer was given the overtime shift ahead of him. It would have been preferable if the communication to the grievor at the time of his initial discussion with the OM had been clear.

8Having heard the facts and submissions in this matter, I must dismiss this grievance.