FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Information
No summary has been written for this decision. Please refer to the full text.
Decision Content
Public Service Staff Relations Act
- Date: 2004-05-07
- File: 166-34-31821
- Citation: 2004 PSSRB 36
Before the Public Service Staff Relations Board
BETWEEN
PENELOPE ULMER
Grievor
and
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Employer
EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION DECISION
Before: Yvon Tarte, Chairperson
For the Grievor: Cécile La Bissonnière, Public Service Alliance of Canada
For the Employer: Lesa Brown
(Note: The parties have agreed to deal with the grievance by way of expedited adjudication. The decision is final and binding on the parties and cannot constitute a precedent or be referred for judicial review to the Federal Court.)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario,
April 30, 2004.
[1] The parties submitted an "Agreed Statement of Facts", which reads as follows:
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
- The applicable collective agreement for this grievance is the Collective Agreement between the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, that was signed on June 23, 2000 and that expired on October 31, 2000.
- At all material times, the grievor was a PM-02 Customs Inspector at the Longroom Office located at 1955 Smith Street in Regina, Saskatchewan.
- At all material times, the grievor was a shift worker. At the time in question, Saturday and Sunday constituted the grievor's days of rest.
- On December 22, 2000, management posted the shift schedule for January 2001. The shift schedule indicated that the grievor was scheduled to work two separate periods of overtime on Saturday, January 13, 2001, her first day of rest. More specifically, the grievor was scheduled to work from 13:30 to 14:38 and from 16:00 to 24:00.
- The grievor submitted her time sheet to management requesting the three-hour minimum payment pursuant to Article 28.07(c((i) of the relevant collective agreement for the first period of overtime worked on January 13, 2001 and payment at the rate of time and one-half for the second period of overtime worked.
- Management did not agree with the amount of compensation requested by the grievor for January 13, 2001, and, instead, compensated the grievor pursuant to 28.07(a) of the relevant collective agreement. More specifically, she was compensated at the rate of time and one-half for the first 7.5 hours of overtime worked on January 13, 2001 and at the rate of double time for the subsequent overtime hours she worked that day.
- The grievor submitted her grievance on this issue on March 9, 2001.
[2] Article 28 of the collective agreement reads, in part:
28.07(a) an employee who is required to work on a first day of rest is entitled to compensation at time and one-half (1 1/2) for the first seven and one-half (7 1/2) hours and double (2) time thereafter;
.
(c) when an employee is required to report for work and reports on a day of rest, the employee shall be paid the greater of:
(i) compensation equivalent to three (3) hours' pay at the applicable overtime rate for each reporting to a maximum of eight (8) hours' compensation in an eight (8) hour period,
or
(ii) compensation at the applicable overtime rate.
[3] This grievance deals with the difference contained in the collective agreement between scheduled and non-scheduled overtime. This issue was canvassed by previous adjudicators in Graham et al. (PSSRB File Nos. 166-2-2735 to 2737) and Jefferies et al. and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2003 PSSRB 55).
[4] In both those cases, the expression "is required to report to work and reports" has been interpreted to refer only to situations where reporting to work is on short notice and not scheduled.
[5] This is clearly not the case here. Given that the grievor was scheduled to work overtime on January 13, 2001, she was entitled to overtime compensation pursuant to subclause 28.07(a) and not subclause 28.07(c).
[6] This grievance is therefore denied.
Yvon Tarte,
Chairperson
OTTAWA, May 7, 2004.