GSB#2013-3311

UNION#2013-0616-0045

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Petri)

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

Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Caroline Markiewicz Treasury Board Secretariat Centre for Employee Relations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

September 23, 2015

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the North Bay Jail 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 will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is without prejudice or precedent.

2The grievor is an unclassified Correctional Officer who filed a grievance related to the refusal of the Employer to approve a shift exchange that had been arranged between her and another unclassified Correctional Officer, Stephanie Reaume.

3On Monday October 14, 2013, Ms. Reaume was scheduled to work a 12-hour shift from 7:30 PM to 7:30 AM. Due to childcare commitments, she was not able to work that full shift. The grievor was scheduled to work a 4-hour shift from 7:30 PM to 11:30 PM that day. Ms. Reaume and the grievor mutually agreed to an exchange of their respective shifts. That arrangement, however, was not approved by the Operational Manager on duty.

4Subsequently, Ms. Reaume’s 12-hour shift was split equally by two employees, pursuant to the protocol for offering available hours to unclassified Correctional Officers.

5The position of the Union and the grievor was that the shift exchange should have been approved pursuant to the September 25, 2008 Local Agreement between the Employer and the Union regarding the scheduling of unclassified Correctional Officers. It was noted that the request would not have incurred overtime for the grievor; or adversely affected the operational needs of the Employer. The remedy being sought is that the grievor be credited with eight hours of seniority.

6The Employer did not approve the shift exchange on account of the difference in hours with respect to the shifts involved. The Employer suggested that it was its practice only to approve a shift exchange when the relative length of the respective two shifts was the same. It was asserted that it would be inconsistent with its obligation to fairly and equitably distribute all available hours amongst the staff, pursuant to the Local Agreement regarding the scheduling of unclassified Correctional Officers; if the grievor was allowed to proceed with working the 12-hour shift by way of a shift exchange. Specifically, the hours that were available as a result of Ms. Reaume not being available to work her shift were assigned in accordance with the protocol of assigning available hours of work to the unclassified Correctional Officers.

7After reviewing the facts and the submissions of the parties, it is my conclusion that the Employer’s decision was reasonable in the circumstances and in accordance with the spirit and wording of the September 25, 2008 Local Agreement regarding the scheduling of unclassified Correctional Officers and the collective agreement. Specifically, the Employer’s decision was consistent with its obligation to distribute available hours of work to unclassified Correctional Officers in a fair and equitable manner and it would not have been appropriate to allow the grievor to obtain a full twelve-hour shift of work in exchange for her scheduled four-hour shift.

8Accordingly, the grievance is hereby dismissed.