GSB#2014-0297

UNION#2014-0510-0006

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Chica)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Attorney General)

Employer

BEFORE

Gail Misra

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Seung Chi Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Stephanie Borcsok Treasury Board Secretariat Centre For Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

February 13, 2015

Decision

1The parties referred this Grievance to mediation/arbitration in accordance with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement. At the outset of the proceeding the parties agreed that I had the jurisdiction to deal with this matter. They asked that I issue a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

2Ms. Marlene Chica, a Team Leader for the Client Services Representatives who work at the Small Claims Court located at 47 Sheppard Avenue in Toronto, filed a grievance dated January 30, 2014, alleging breaches of Articles 2, 9, 21, and 25 of the collective agreement. The grievance alleges that the employer wrongly denied Chica’s request for special and compassionate leave for December 23 and 24, 2013.

3In the aftermath of a severe ice storm in Toronto, the grievor had lost power at her home. Nonetheless, she left her husband at home with their four children, and drove to her workplace on December 23, 2013. When she got to the courthouse she was advised that the building was closed due to a loss of power, and that she could not enter the parking lot. The grievor was in contact with some of her coworkers, and they decided to meet at a McDonald’s restaurant located near Sheppard Avenue and Leslie Street as it had a parking lot and was open.

4The grievor’s supervisor was on vacation at the time. However, as the Team Leader, Chica contacted the supervisor on vacation to tell her that there was a group of workers at the restaurant and to seek instructions as to what they should do. The grievor was advised that some of the court staff were at the Sheppard Centre also awaiting instructions. After some phone calls back and forth, and waiting for about two hours, at around 10 or 10:30 a.m. Chica and her colleagues at the McDonald’s restaurant were told that they should go to the courthouse at 311 Jarvis Street to work there.

5There is some dispute about whether the workers were only offered TTC tokens to get downtown or whether they were also offered taxi chits so that they could take a taxi to 311 Jarvis Street. The grievor states that she was only told about the TTC tokens. The employer states that both tokens and taxis were offered, as were parking options for those who either wished to leave their cars at the north end of the city or drive downtown. It is unnecessary to resolve this issue for the purposes of this decision.

6The grievor advised management that she would not go to the 311 Jarvis Street courthouse as she feared for her health and safety. She was concerned about driving downtown, and felt that she could not take the subway downtown as there was nowhere to leave her car. Even had she known of the taxi option, she would still not have had a place to leave her car. Chica advised the employer that none of the women waiting at the McDonald’s restaurant felt it would be safe to get downtown, and that she and the others were therefore going home. It is worth noting that the grievor was paid for the two hours that she had waited to hear what the employer’s alternate work plan was for that day.

7On December 24, 2013 a manager contacted Ms. Chica to advise her that the 47 Sheppard Avenue courthouse was still without power, and that the staff should be reporting to work at 311 Jarvis Street. Although the grievor committed to contacting as many colleagues as she could about the contingency plan, she told the employer that she herself would not be coming into work. The grievor explained that as her home still had no power her husband had to go out to look for a power source to heat their home. As such, she had to remain at home with their four children.

8The employer submitted that there was no violation of the collective agreement. It had carefully assessed each of the approximately 90 requests it had received for compassionate leave, and it had decided, pursuant to its management rights and the exercise of its discretion, to deny the grievor’s leave request.

9Having heard from the grievor, and carefully considered the submissions of the parties, I hereby deny the grievance.