GSB# 2022-3859

UNION# 2022-0290-0014

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ricketts)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Gail Misra

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Gregg Gray Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Karen Martin Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations Branch Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

November 27, 2024

Decision

1The parties have agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process to resolve grievances at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre (“RMYC”) in Brampton. Although a formal protocol has not been finalized, the parties have agreed to attempt to settle matters at mediation and, if mediation is not successful, to refer appropriate cases to expedited arbitration. The parties specifically agree that the arbitrator can hear the matter under Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement. This decision is issued in accordance with Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement, so that it is without precedent or prejudice to any other matters between the parties, and is issued without detailed written reasons.

2Henzly Ricketts is a Fixed Term Youth Services Officer at the RMYC. On March 16, 2022 Mr. Ricketts filed a grievance claiming that the Employer had violated Articles 2 and 31 A.3 of the Collective Agreement. By way of remedy, the grievor is seeking to be paid for ten hours of overtime during which time he completed Occurrence Reports (“OR”).

3On February 22, 2022 the grievor was working an 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. shift. At approximately 5:30 p.m. the grievor was instructed by management to go upstairs to write some Occurrence Reports. He was then escorted to the place where he was left to write the reports.

4Since the grievor was still not done writing his ORs by the 7 p.m. end of his shift, his manager had told him to advise the Night Shift Manager that the grievor was still upstairs writing reports. The grievor maintains that it took him 11.5 hours in total, from 5:30 p.m. on February 22^nd until 5 a.m. on February 23^rd to complete his ORs, at which point he signed an Overtime Sheet for ten hours, and left the premises.

5The Employer did not pay the grievor for any hours beyond the end of his regular shift and contests how it could possibly have taken the grievor 11.5 hours to prepare four Occurrence Reports. The Employer maintains that it only pays employees for authorized overtime work, and that no manager authorized the grievor to work 10 hours of overtime to write his ORs.

6The Union maintains that since the original Manager had told the grievor to advise the Evening Shift Manager if Mr. Ricketts was still there writing reports at 7 p.m., which the grievor did, that the overtime was authorized and should be paid.

7I have reviewed the four ORs that the grievor completed. The longest OR dated November 22, 2020 is about one and a quarter pages long. It refers to incidents that occurred beginning on November 4 to 13, 2020, November 24, 2022, and February 16, 2022. The November 24, 2022 date makes no sense as the OR was being written on February 22, 2022.

8The next is dated February 22, 2021, even though it is referring to matters that allegedly occurred on June 27, July 5, and 6, 2021, which are all dates that are later than February 22, 2021. It is less than a half page long. Given the obvious date discrepancies, it is unclear what dates the grievor was referring to in this OR.

9The third OR is dated November 22, 2022 and is about a half page long. It seems apparent that since it was written on February 22, 2022, it is unlikely it is about anything that would be occurring in the future. It is unclear what date the grievor was referring to in that OR.

10The fourth OR is also dated November 22, 2022, but refers in the body of the report to an incident that occurred November 2, 2021. This report is about a half page long.

11Having reviewed the documents, as outlined above, it is clear that the grievor purports to have written three very short ORs and one somewhat longer one, over the course of 11.5 hours. That is an inordinately long time in which to have produced reports that do not even appear to have the dates correct on any of them.

12It is apparent that the original Manager had anticipated that it may take the grievor a little longer than the 1.5 hours that had still been remaining on Mr. Ricketts’ shift when the grievor started writing the ORs, as the grievor was told to tell the Evening Shift Manager if he was still there at 7 p.m. Therefore, I accept that there was implicit authorization for some overtime beyond the end of Mr. Ricketts’ shift. However, I do not believe that any Manager would have authorized ten hours of overtime to write what the grievor produced, nor is there any factual basis upon which I could find that it could have taken Mr. Ricketts a total of 11.5 hours of work time to produce what he did. It is simply implausible.

13Having considered the facts and arguments before me, I direct the Employer to pay the grievor for 1.5 hours of overtime. The grievance is therefore upheld in part.