Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Johnston) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2019 CanLII 12519

GSB# 2018-1273

UNION# 2018-0368-0146

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Johnston)

Union

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Dan Sidsworth Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Sia Romanidis Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

January 10, 2019

DECISION

1The Employer and the Union at the Central East Correctional 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 Arbitrator 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 facts in this matter are straightforward and not in dispute.

3Liz Johnston (the “grievor”) is employed as a Records Clerk at the Central East Correctional Centre.

4The grievance asserts that the grievor was “bypassed” with respect to an opportunity to work overtime on two dates: May 11 and May 16, 2018. The parties were able to resolve the dispute regarding the overtime claim for May 16, 2018.

5As to the overtime opportunity on May 11, 2018, upon reviewing the relevant information, it is my determination that the Employer did not improperly bypass the grievor with respect to that overtime opportunity. In endeavouring to equalize overtime opportunities, the Employer properly considered an extra shift that the grievor accepted and then cancelled during the relevant time period as an overtime opportunity in her favour.

6In light of the above reasoning, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.