GSB# 2018-0878; 2018-0879; 2018-0880; 2018-0881; 2018-0882; 2018-0883; 2018-0884; 2018-0885; 2018-0886; 2018-0887; 2018-0888; 2018-0889; 2018-0890; 2018-0891; 2018-0892; 2018-0893; 2018-1845;

2018-1004

UNION# 2018-0234-0102; 2018-0234-0103; 2018-0234-0104; 2018-0234-0105; 2018-0234-0106; 2018-0234-0107; 2018-0234-0108; 2018-0234-0109; 2018-0234-0110; 2018-0234-0111; 2018-0234-0112; 2018-0234-0113; 2018-0234-0114; 2018-0234-0115; 2018-0234-0116; 2018-0234-0117; 2018-0234-0205;

2018-0234-0125

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Archer et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

Employer

BEFORE

Daniel Harris

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Suneel Bahal Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel

HEARING

December 17, 2020 and January 26, 2021

Decision

1The parties are agreed that Article 22.16 applies to this Order.

2The Union filed grievances on behalf of its members at Maplehurst Correctional Centre claiming that the Employer violated the collective agreement in relation to the administration of the meal allowance and overtime provisions. The parties attended before me on December 17, 2020 and January 26, 2021. On those dates the parties agreed to proceed with respect to one of the issues in dispute and hold the other issues to be determined at a later hearing date. The claim at issue is whether employees at Maplehurst, when assigned to escort duty, who work through their meal break are entitled to compensation at straight time or at time and one half (overtime rate) for this time worked. The Union claims that the member is entitled to the overtime rate. The Employer took the position that the memorandum dated May 17, 2013 issued by Ms. Cumming was a full response to the Union’s claim. This decision addresses this one issue.

3Having heard the submissions of the parties and reviewed the collective agreement, grievance forms and other documentation provided by the parties including the memorandum issued by Ms. Cumming noted above, I find that the employees are entitled to the overtime rate. For greater clarity, if an employee’s schedule provides for an unpaid meal break and the employee is not provided relief to take the meal break while on Community / hospital duty thereby resulting in the employee working through the unpaid meal break in addition to also working their scheduled shift hours then the officer is entitled to the overtime rate for the normally unpaid meal break time. This is in addition to the one-hour compensation in recognition for the missed meal break as provided for in paragraph 6 of the “escort” Memorandum of Settlement dated July 11, 2004. As noted in the memorandum issued by Ms. Cumming, “the rationale for this is that anytime worked over and above the hours scheduled for a particular shift is overtime and must be paid as such in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement.”

4Accordingly, I grant the grievances and direct the Employer to pay the Employees at the overtime rate for the applicable shifts. Pursuant to the parties’ request, I remit the issue of remedy for the individual grievors back to the parties to resolve. Should the parties be unable to reach a resolution on the appropriate remedy I remain seized of this matter.

5The other issues in dispute as raised by the grievances will proceed before me at a later date.